VIVS vs RXRX vs SDGR vs INVA

For growth investors, VivoSim Labs, Inc.

(VIVS) is the stronger pick with 32. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 18. 5% for Innoviva, Inc. (INVA). Innoviva, Inc. (INVA) offers the better valuation at 6. 9x trailing P/E (7. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Schrödinger, Inc. (SDGR) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

Over the past 5 years, Innoviva, Inc.

(INVA) delivered a total return of +94. 5%, compared to -85. 6% for Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RXRX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: INVA returned +95. 6% versus RXRX's -81. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Innoviva, Inc.

(INVA) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 11β versus Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 's 2. 99β — meaning RXRX is approximately 2532% more volatile than INVA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RXRX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 30% for Schrödinger, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), VivoSim Labs, Inc.

(VIVS) is pulling ahead at 32. 1% versus 18. 5% for Innoviva, Inc. (INVA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Innoviva, Inc. grew EPS 816. 7% year-over-year, compared to 14. 8% for Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RXRX leads at 23. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Innoviva, Inc.

(INVA) is the more profitable company, earning 63. 8% net margin versus -1727. 8% for VivoSim Labs, Inc. — meaning it keeps 63. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: INVA leads at 38. 5% versus -87. 6% for VIVS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — VIVS leads at 96. 5%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RXRX: 231.

3% to $11. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Innoviva, Inc.

(INVA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 11)). Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (RXRX) carries a higher beta of 2. 99 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (INVA: +95. 6%, RXRX: -81. 6%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.