Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $306M | $2.50B | $4.55B | $5.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $52M | $236M | $634M | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $32M | $-369M | $-27M | $-464M |
| Gross Margin | 94.3% | 90.7% | 87.9% | — |
| Operating Margin | 21.8% | -168.6% | 5.2% | — |
| Forward P/E | 22.5x | — | 40.6x | — |
| Total Debt | $132M | $99M | $483M | $98K |
| Cash & Equiv. | $83M | $222M | $214M | $714M |
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) | 100 | 101.4 | +1.4% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 95.5 | -4.5% |
| Amicus Therapeutics… (FOLD) | 100 | 62.6 | -37.4% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 58.9 | -41.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
XOMAP carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.03, yield 1.2%
- Rev growth 83.1%, EPS growth 188.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 105.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.03, current ratio 3.37x
- Beta 0.03, yield 1.2%, current ratio 3.37x
RCUS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if momentum is your priority.
- +209.6% vs XOMAP's +6.9%
FOLD plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 173.6% 10Y total return vs FOLD's 119.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 83.1% revenue growth vs IMVT's -21.3% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 60.8% margin vs RCUS's -156.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.03 vs RCUS's 1.95 | |
| Dividends | 1.2% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +209.6% vs XOMAP's +6.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.0% ROA vs IMVT's -44.1% |
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
XOMAP leads in 3 of 6 categories
IMVT leads 1 • RCUS leads 0 • FOLD leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
XOMAP leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FOLD and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $634M and $0 in trailing revenue. XOMAP is the more profitable business, keeping 60.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RCUS's -156.4%. On growth, XOMAP holds the edge at +57.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $52M | $236M | $634M | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $14M | -$391M | $40M | -$487M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $32M | -$369M | -$27M | -$464M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3M | -$489M | $30M | -$423M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +94.3% | +90.7% | +87.9% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +21.8% | -168.6% | +5.2% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +60.8% | -156.4% | -4.3% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +5.4% | -2.1% | +4.7% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +57.9% | -39.3% | +23.7% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -68.3% | +10.5% | -89.0% | +19.7% |
Valuation Metrics
XOMAP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, XOMAP's 24.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FOLD's 114.9x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $306M | $2.5B | $4.5B | $5.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $355M | $2.4B | $4.8B | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 17.35x | -7.54x | -164.85x | -9.97x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 22.54x | — | 40.62x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.30x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 24.70x | — | 114.88x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.87x | 10.11x | 7.17x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.38x | 4.22x | 16.29x | 5.83x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 106.58x | — | 152.43x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
XOMAP leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
XOMAP delivers a 32.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-69 for RCUS. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FOLD's 1.76x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), XOMAP scores 5/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +32.6% | -69.0% | -12.0% | -47.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +13.0% | -35.3% | -3.2% | -44.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.8% | -64.1% | +5.3% | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.2% | -42.1% | +5.1% | -66.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.27x | 0.16x | 1.76x | 0.00x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $49M | -$123M | $269M | -$714M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $83M | $222M | $214M | $714M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $132M | $99M | $483M | $98,000 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.47x | -13.38x | 1.00x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IMVT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $16,241 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,143 for RCUS. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +209.6% total return vs XOMAP's +6.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IMVT at 12.1% vs FOLD's 6.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -2.6% | +6.5% | +1.5% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +6.9% | +209.6% | +137.9% | +96.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +31.2% | +24.9% | +19.0% | +40.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.5% | -18.6% | +48.6% | +62.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +50.9% | +45.9% | +119.2% | +173.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +9.5% | +7.7% | +6.0% | +12.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — XOMAP and FOLD each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
XOMAP is the less volatile stock with a 0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RCUS's 1.95 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FOLD currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs XOMAP's 84.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.03x | 1.95x | 0.63x | 1.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $30.00 | $28.72 | $14.50 | $30.09 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $25.14 | $7.06 | $5.51 | $13.36 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +84.4% | +86.3% | +99.9% | +90.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 41.4 | 60.5 | 72.2 | 60.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2K | 1.2M | 3.0M | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: XOMAP as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", FOLD as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 67.2% upside for IMVT (target: $46) vs 0.1% for FOLD (target: $15). XOMAP is the only dividend payer here at 1.20% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $30.00 | $14.50 | $45.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 18 | 24 | 23 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.2% | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.30 | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +5.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
XOMAP leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). IMVT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
XOMAP vs RCUS vs FOLD vs IMVT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) is the stronger pick with 83.
1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) offers the better valuation at 17. 3x trailing P/E (22. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
On forward P/E, XOMA Corporation is actually cheaper at 22.
5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +62. 4%, compared to -18. 6% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +173. 6% versus RCUS's +45. 9%. 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 — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
03β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 1. 95β — meaning RCUS is approximately 5695% more volatile than XOMAP relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 176% for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) is pulling ahead at 83.
1% versus -4. 3% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: XOMA Corporation grew EPS 188. 5% year-over-year, compared to -45. 2% for Immunovant, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, XOMAP leads at 105. 3% 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 — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) is the more profitable company, earning 60.
8% net margin versus -142. 9% for Arcus Biosciences, Inc. — meaning it keeps 60. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: XOMAP leads at 21. 8% versus -156. 3% for RCUS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RCUS leads at 96. 0%, 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 XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) trades at 22.
5x forward P/E versus 40. 6x for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — 18. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IMVT: 67. 2% to $45. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT?
In this comparison, XOMAP (1.
2% yield) pays a dividend. RCUS, FOLD, IMVT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is XOMAP or RCUS or FOLD or IMVT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, XOMA Corporation (XOMAP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
03), 1. 2% yield). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 1. 95 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (XOMAP: +50. 9%, RCUS: +45. 9%), 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 XOMAP and RCUS and FOLD and IMVT?
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: XOMAP is a small-cap high-growth stock; RCUS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FOLD is a small-cap high-growth stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock. XOMAP pays a dividend while RCUS, FOLD, IMVT do 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.
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.