Medical - Healthcare Information Services
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Devices
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Healthcare Information Services | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Devices |
| Market Cap | $1.20B | $1.11B | $31.16B | $498M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $443M | $413M | $2.31B | $160M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-78M | $-8M | $-208M | $-546M |
| Gross Margin | 68.3% | 48.2% | 64.8% | 28.2% |
| Operating Margin | -14.8% | -3.3% | -13.4% | -346.1% |
| Forward P/E | 51.1x | 22.8x | — | — |
| Total Debt | $152M | $20M | $214M | $759M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $65M | $1.08B | $64M |
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GeneDx Holdings Cor… (WGS) | 100 | 12.0 | -88.0% |
| CareDx, Inc (CDNA) | 100 | 37.5 | -62.5% |
| Natera, Inc. (NTRA) | 100 | 249.0 | +149.0% |
| Pacific Biosciences… (PACB) | 100 | 10.4 | -89.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WGS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 40.0%, EPS growth 62.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.1%
- 40.0% revenue growth vs PACB's 3.9%
CDNA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Better valuation composite
- -2.0% margin vs PACB's -341.5%
- -1.9% ROA vs PACB's -66.8%, ROIC -5.7% vs -45.8%
NTRA is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- beta 1.26
- 20.9% 10Y total return vs CDNA's 385.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.26, Low D/E 12.5%, current ratio 3.39x
- Beta 1.26, current ratio 3.39x
PACB is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +46.0% vs WGS's -29.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 40.0% revenue growth vs PACB's 3.9% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | -2.0% margin vs PACB's -341.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.26 vs PACB's 2.43, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +46.0% vs WGS's -29.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | -1.9% ROA vs PACB's -66.8%, ROIC -5.7% vs -45.8% |
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CDNA leads in 1 of 6 categories
WGS leads 0 • NTRA leads 0 • PACB leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CDNA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTRA is the larger business by revenue, generating $2.3B annually — 14.4x PACB's $160M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -2.0% (CDNA) to -3.4% (PACB). On growth, NTRA holds the edge at +39.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $443M | $413M | $2.3B | $160M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$46M | $2M | -$310M | -$169M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$78M | -$8M | -$208M | -$546M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$29M | $65M | $97M | -$124M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +68.3% | +48.2% | +64.8% | +28.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -14.8% | -3.3% | -13.4% | -3.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -17.6% | -2.0% | -9.0% | -3.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -6.5% | +15.8% | +4.2% | -77.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +17.4% | +39.0% | +39.8% | +13.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.4% | +126.3% | +185.4% | — |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — WGS and CDNA each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $1.1B | $31.2B | $498M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.2B | $1.1B | $30.3B | $1.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -55.48x | -53.60x | -144.62x | -0.91x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 51.10x | 22.85x | — | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 93.08x | — | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.81x | 2.92x | 13.51x | 3.11x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.53x | 3.77x | 17.55x | 92.53x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 84.31x | 30.66x | 285.53x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — WGS and CDNA each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CDNA delivers a -2.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-3 in annual profit, vs $-11 for PACB. CDNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PACB's 141.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WGS scores 7/9 vs PACB's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -27.5% | -2.6% | -15.3% | -11.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -15.3% | -1.9% | -10.6% | -66.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.8% | -5.7% | -36.1% | -45.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.9% | -5.8% | -18.3% | -58.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.49x | 0.06x | 0.13x | 141.98x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $47M | -$46M | -$862M | $696M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $65M | $1.1B | $64M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $152M | $20M | $214M | $759M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -11.13x | — | -25.21x | -77.95x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — WGS and NTRA each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NTRA five years ago would be worth $21,587 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $663 for PACB. Over the past 12 months, PACB leads with a +46.0% total return vs WGS's -29.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WGS at 66.0% vs PACB's -48.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -69.4% | +12.0% | -3.9% | -10.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -29.4% | +45.2% | +37.3% | +46.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +357.6% | +161.1% | +314.0% | -86.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.8% | -72.4% | +115.9% | -93.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.5% | +385.1% | +2089.4% | -81.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +66.0% | +37.7% | +60.6% | -48.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CDNA and NTRA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NTRA is the less volatile stock with a 1.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PACB's 2.43 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CDNA currently trades 92.3% from its 52-week high vs WGS's 23.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.89x | 1.39x | 1.26x | 2.43x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $170.87 | $23.24 | $256.36 | $2.73 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $32.21 | $10.96 | $131.81 | $0.85 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +23.7% | +92.3% | +85.7% | +60.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 24.0 | 56.4 | 57.1 | 60.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 667K | 1.3M | 5.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WGS as "Buy", CDNA as "Buy", NTRA as "Buy", PACB as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 248.1% upside for WGS (target: $141) vs -39.4% for PACB (target: $1).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $141.00 | $24.00 | $262.50 | $1.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 13 | 27 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +7.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CDNA leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow. 4 categories are tied.
WGS vs CDNA vs NTRA vs PACB: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is the stronger pick with 40. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 9% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB). Analysts rate GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS) a "Buy" — based on 11 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.
02Which is the better long-term investment — WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB?
Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) delivered a total return of +115. 9%, compared to -93. 4% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +20. 9% versus WGS's -87. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 26β versus Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. 's 2. 43β — meaning PACB is approximately 93% more volatile than NTRA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 142% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is pulling ahead at 40. 0% versus 3. 9% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GeneDx Holdings Corp. grew EPS 62. 4% year-over-year, compared to -143. 0% for CareDx, Inc. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 41. 1% 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.
05Which has better profit margins — WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB?
GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is the more profitable company, earning -4. 9% net margin versus -341. 5% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — meaning it keeps -4. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WGS leads at -2. 8% versus -348. 5% for PACB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WGS leads at 69. 7%, 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.
06Is WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) trades at 22.
8x forward P/E versus 51. 1x for GeneDx Holdings Corp. — 28. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WGS: 248. 1% to $141. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB?
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.
08Is WGS or CDNA or NTRA or PACB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+385.
1% 10Y return). Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB) carries a higher beta of 2. 43 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CDNA: +385. 1%, PACB: -81. 3%), 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.
09What are the main differences between WGS and CDNA and NTRA and PACB?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: WGS is a small-cap high-growth stock; CDNA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; PACB is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.