Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Drug Manufacturers - General
Banks - Diversified
Drug Manufacturers - General
Drug Manufacturers - General
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General | Banks - Diversified | Drug Manufacturers - General | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $505M | $402.80B | $896.00B | $116.64B | $191.70B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $9M | $61.16B | $280.33B | $48.48B | $37.24B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-100M | $4.23B | $57.05B | $7.28B | $7.80B |
| Gross Margin | 79.4% | 70.2% | 60.0% | 68.7% | 71.5% |
| Operating Margin | -10.8% | 26.7% | 25.9% | 25.7% | 31.6% |
| Forward P/E | — | 16.0x | 14.4x | 9.0x | 15.9x |
| Total Debt | $77M | $69.07B | $942.38B | $47.14B | $54.60B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $217M | $5.23B | $343.34B | $10.21B | $9.13B |
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| X4 Pharmaceuticals,… (XFOR) | 100 | 1.4 | -98.6% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 232.0 | +132.0% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| Bristol-Myers Squib… (BMY) | 100 | 97.2 | -2.8% |
| Amgen Inc. (AMGN) | 100 | 150.6 | +50.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
XFOR has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth and momentum.
- 12.7% revenue growth vs BMY's -0.2%
- +31.1% vs BMY's +17.6%
ABBV ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 43 yrs, beta 0.14, yield 2.9%
- Beta 0.14 vs XFOR's 2.35
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs ABBV's 362.2%
- PEG 0.81 vs AMGN's 5.39
- Lower P/E (14.4x vs 15.9x), PEG 0.81 vs 5.39
BMY is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.34, current ratio 1.26x
- Beta 0.34, yield 4.3%, current ratio 1.26x
- 4.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs ABBV's 2.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
AMGN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 9.9%, EPS growth 88.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.8%
- 20.9% margin vs XFOR's -11.1%
- 8.6% ROA vs XFOR's -48.1%, ROIC 14.8% vs -143.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.7% revenue growth vs BMY's -0.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.4x vs 15.9x), PEG 0.81 vs 5.39 | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.9% margin vs XFOR's -11.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.14 vs XFOR's 2.35 | |
| Dividends | 4.3% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs ABBV's 2.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +31.1% vs BMY's +17.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.6% ROA vs XFOR's -48.1%, ROIC 14.8% vs -143.1% |
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BMY leads in 1 of 6 categories
JPM leads 1 • XFOR leads 0 • ABBV leads 0 • AMGN leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — ABBV and AMGN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 31099.7x XFOR's $9M. AMGN is the more profitable business, keeping 20.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to XFOR's -11.1%. On growth, ABBV holds the edge at +10.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $9M | $61.2B | $280.3B | $48.5B | $37.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$97M | $24.5B | $81.4B | $15.7B | $15.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$100M | $4.2B | $57.0B | $7.3B | $7.8B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$73M | $18.7B | $100.9B | $11.9B | $8.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +79.4% | +70.2% | +60.0% | +68.7% | +71.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -10.8% | +26.7% | +25.9% | +25.7% | +31.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -11.1% | +6.9% | +20.4% | +15.0% | +20.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.1% | +30.6% | +36.0% | +24.6% | +23.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -90.6% | +10.0% | — | +2.6% | +5.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.0% | +57.4% | +16.0% | +9.2% | +4.4% |
Valuation Metrics
BMY leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 83% valuation discount to ABBV's 96.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs AMGN's 8.49x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $505M | $402.8B | $896.0B | $116.6B | $191.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $365M | $466.6B | $1.50T | $153.6B | $237.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.14x | 96.09x | 16.00x | 16.56x | 24.96x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.96x | 14.40x | 9.04x | 15.87x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.90x | — | 8.49x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 16.53x | 18.36x | 9.28x | 14.97x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 14.39x | 6.59x | 3.20x | 2.42x | 5.22x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.91x | — | 2.47x | 6.30x | 22.24x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 22.61x | 8.88x | 9.08x | 23.67x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — XFOR and ABBV each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-95 for XFOR. XFOR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.41x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AMGN's 6.31x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BMY scores 8/9 vs XFOR's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -94.9% | +62.1% | +15.9% | +39.0% | +89.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -48.1% | +3.1% | +1.3% | +7.9% | +8.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -143.1% | +23.9% | +4.5% | +16.9% | +14.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -45.9% | +21.5% | +8.9% | +18.7% | +16.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.41x | — | 2.60x | 2.55x | 6.31x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$140M | $63.8B | $599.0B | $36.9B | $45.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $217M | $5.2B | $343.3B | $10.2B | $9.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $77M | $69.1B | $942.4B | $47.1B | $54.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -11.10x | 3.28x | 0.74x | 10.33x | 5.02x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
JPM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABBV five years ago would be worth $22,367 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $159 for XFOR. Over the past 12 months, XFOR leads with a +31.1% total return vs BMY's +17.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs XFOR's -61.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.8% | +0.8% | -0.5% | +9.2% | +10.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +31.1% | +21.9% | +21.8% | +17.6% | +22.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -94.1% | +79.3% | +138.2% | -0.5% | +76.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -98.4% | +123.7% | +118.2% | +2.1% | +65.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.8% | +362.2% | +465.8% | +6.7% | +178.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -61.1% | +21.5% | +33.6% | -0.2% | +20.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ABBV and JPM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.14 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than XFOR's 2.35 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. JPM currently trades 95.1% from its 52-week high vs XFOR's 82.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.35x | 0.14x | 0.94x | 0.34x | 0.53x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.83 | $244.81 | $337.25 | $62.89 | $391.29 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.35 | $181.73 | $262.71 | $42.52 | $267.83 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +82.8% | +93.0% | +95.1% | +90.8% | +90.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.5 | 62.8 | 59.1 | 49.9 | 61.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 390K | 4.6M | 7.0M | 8.9M | 2.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ABBV and BMY each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: XFOR as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", BMY as "Hold", AMGN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 200.0% upside for XFOR (target: $12) vs -1.8% for AMGN (target: $349). For income investors, BMY offers the higher dividend yield at 4.33% vs JPM's 1.86%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.00 | $256.92 | $339.75 | $62.60 | $348.80 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 41 | 61 | 41 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.9% | +1.9% | +4.3% | +2.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 43 | 15 | 4 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $6.57 | $5.95 | $2.47 | $9.45 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.2% | +3.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
BMY leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). JPM leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
XFOR vs ABBV vs JPM vs BMY vs AMGN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(XFOR) is the stronger pick with 1273% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 2% for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 16. 0x trailing P/E (14. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (XFOR) a "Buy" — based on 13 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 — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 16. 0x versus AbbVie Inc. at 96. 1x. On forward P/E, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is actually cheaper at 9. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus Amgen Inc. 's 5. 39x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
Over the past 5 years, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) delivered a total return of +123. 7%, compared to -98. 4% for X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (XFOR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus XFOR's -99. 8%. 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 — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 's 2. 35β — meaning XFOR is approximately 1626% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (XFOR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 6% for Amgen Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(XFOR) is pulling ahead at 1273% versus -0. 2% for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company grew EPS 178. 2% year-over-year, compared to -0. 8% for AbbVie Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMGN leads at 11. 8% 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 — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
Amgen Inc.
(AMGN) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 0% net margin versus -225. 6% for X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABBV leads at 32. 8% versus -247. 4% for XFOR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — XFOR leads at 82. 2%, 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 XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus Amgen Inc. 's 5. 39x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) trades at 9. 0x forward P/E versus 16. 0x for AbbVie Inc. — 6. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for XFOR: 200. 0% to $12. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN?
In this comparison, BMY (4.
3% yield), ABBV (2. 9% yield), AMGN (2. 7% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield) pay a dividend. XFOR does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is XFOR or ABBV or JPM or BMY or AMGN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 2. 9% yield, +362. 2% 10Y return). X4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (XFOR) carries a higher beta of 2. 35 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +362. 2%, XFOR: -99. 8%), 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 XFOR and ABBV and JPM and BMY and AMGN?
These companies operate in different sectors (XFOR (Healthcare) and ABBV (Healthcare) and JPM (Financial Services) and BMY (Healthcare) and AMGN (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: XFOR is a small-cap high-growth stock; ABBV is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; BMY is a mid-cap deep-value stock; AMGN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. ABBV, JPM, BMY, AMGN pay a dividend while XFOR does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.