Medical - Healthcare Information Services
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
WGS vs ILMN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
WGS vs ILMN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Healthcare Information Services | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $1.20B | $21.07B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $443M | $4.39B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-78M | $853M |
| Gross Margin | 68.3% | 67.1% |
| Operating Margin | -14.8% | 20.9% |
| Forward P/E | 51.1x | 26.8x |
| Total Debt | $152M | $2.55B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $1.42B |
WGS vs ILMN — 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% |
| Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) | 100 | 44.3 | -55.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WGS vs ILMN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WGS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 40.0%, EPS growth 62.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.89, Low D/E 49.3%, current ratio 2.46x
- 40.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8%
ILMN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- beta 1.23
- 0.7% 10Y total return vs WGS's -87.5%
- Beta 1.23, current ratio 2.08x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 40.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (26.8x vs 51.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.4% margin vs WGS's -17.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.23 vs WGS's 1.89 | |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither stock pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +81.7% vs WGS's -29.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs WGS's -15.3%, ROIC 16.8% vs -2.8% |
WGS vs ILMN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WGS vs ILMN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ILMN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ILMN is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.4B annually — 9.9x WGS's $443M. ILMN is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to WGS's -17.6%. On growth, WGS holds the edge at +17.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $443M | $4.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$46M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$78M | $853M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$29M | $989M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +68.3% | +67.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -14.8% | +20.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -17.6% | +19.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -6.5% | +22.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +17.4% | +4.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.4% | +6.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — WGS and ILMN each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, ILMN's 19.6x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than WGS's 93.1x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $21.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.2B | $22.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -55.48x | 25.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 51.10x | 26.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 6.01x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 93.08x | 19.58x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.81x | 4.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.53x | 7.95x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 84.31x | 22.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN delivers a 32.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-28 for WGS. WGS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.49x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ILMN's 0.94x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ILMN scores 8/9 vs WGS's 7/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -27.5% | +32.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -15.3% | +13.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.8% | +16.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.9% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.49x | 0.94x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $47M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $152M | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -11.13x | 12.09x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ILMN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ILMN five years ago would be worth $3,717 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,017 for WGS. Over the past 12 months, ILMN leads with a +81.7% total return vs WGS's -29.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WGS at 66.0% vs ILMN's -10.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -69.4% | +3.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -29.4% | +81.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +357.6% | -27.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.8% | -62.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.5% | +0.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +66.0% | -10.0% |
Risk & Volatility
ILMN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ILMN is the less volatile stock with a 1.23 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than WGS's 1.89 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ILMN currently trades 89.2% 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 | 1.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $170.87 | $155.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $32.21 | $73.86 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +23.7% | +89.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 24.0 | 65.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates WGS as "Buy" and ILMN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 248.1% upside for WGS (target: $141) vs 6.3% for ILMN (target: $147).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $141.00 | $147.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 50 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.5% |
ILMN leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Profitability & Efficiency. 1 category is tied.
WGS vs ILMN: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WGS or ILMN 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 -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) offers the better valuation at 25. 5x trailing P/E (26. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. 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 has the better valuation — WGS or ILMN?
On forward P/E, Illumina, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 26. 8x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WGS or ILMN?
Over the past 5 years, Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) delivered a total return of -62. 8%, compared to -89. 8% for GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ILMN returned +0. 7% 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.
04Which is safer — WGS or ILMN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 23β versus GeneDx Holdings Corp. 's 1. 89β — meaning WGS is approximately 53% more volatile than ILMN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 49% versus 94% for Illumina, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WGS or ILMN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is pulling ahead at 40. 0% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to 62. 4% for GeneDx Holdings Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, WGS leads at 22. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — WGS or ILMN?
Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 6% net margin versus -4. 9% for GeneDx Holdings Corp. — meaning it keeps 19. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ILMN leads at 19. 9% versus -2. 8% for WGS. 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.
07Is WGS or ILMN more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) trades at 26. 8x forward P/E versus 51. 1x for GeneDx Holdings Corp. — 24. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WGS: 248. 1% to $141. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — WGS or ILMN?
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.
09Is WGS or ILMN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 23)). GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS) carries a higher beta of 1. 89 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ILMN: +0. 7%, WGS: -87. 5%), 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.
10What are the main differences between WGS and ILMN?
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; ILMN is a mid-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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.