Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $251M | $2.04B | $7.16B | $4.55B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $298M | $0.00 | $634M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-124M | $298M | $-327M | $-27M |
| Gross Margin | — | 89.7% | — | 87.9% |
| Operating Margin | — | 41.7% | — | 5.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 16.5x | — | 40.6x |
| Total Debt | $40M | $75M | $110K | $483M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $36M | $80M | $357M | $214M |
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zentalis Pharmaceut… (ZNTL) | 100 | 9.5 | -90.5% |
| Aurinia Pharmaceuti… (AUPH) | 100 | 100.9 | +0.9% |
| Praxis Precision Me… (PRAX) | 100 | 50.8 | -49.2% |
| Amicus Therapeutics… (FOLD) | 100 | 81.1 | -18.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ZNTL lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
AUPH carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 20.4%, EPS growth 51.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 28.3%
- 5.0% 10Y total return vs FOLD's 147.3%
- 20.4% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0%
- Lower P/E (16.5x vs 40.6x)
PRAX is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.55, Low D/E 0.0%, current ratio 10.22x
- Beta 1.55, current ratio 10.22x
- +456.0% vs AUPH's +95.9%
FOLD is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- beta 0.50
- Beta 0.50 vs ZNTL's 2.41
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 20.4% revenue growth vs PRAX's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (16.5x vs 40.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 100.0% margin vs FOLD's -4.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.50 vs ZNTL's 2.41 | |
| Dividends | Tie | None of these 4 stocks pay a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | +456.0% vs AUPH's +95.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 47.6% ROA vs ZNTL's -40.7%, ROIC 16.6% vs -40.5% |
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AUPH leads in 3 of 6 categories
PRAX leads 1 • FOLD leads 1 • ZNTL leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AUPH leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FOLD and PRAX operate at a comparable scale, with $634M and $0 in trailing revenue. AUPH is the more profitable business, keeping 100.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FOLD's -4.3%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $298M | $0 | $634M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$144M | $144M | -$357M | $40M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$124M | $298M | -$327M | -$27M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$126M | $166M | -$283M | $30M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +89.7% | — | +87.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +41.7% | — | +5.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +100.0% | — | -4.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +55.5% | — | +4.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +24.4% | — | +23.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +25.4% | +56.3% | +2.7% | -89.0% |
Valuation Metrics
AUPH leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
On an enterprise value basis, AUPH's 17.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than FOLD's 114.9x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $251M | $2.0B | $7.2B | $4.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $254M | $2.0B | $6.8B | $4.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.84x | 7.66x | -18.40x | -164.85x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 16.48x | — | 40.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 17.80x | — | 114.88x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 7.20x | — | 7.17x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.17x | 3.78x | 6.36x | 16.29x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 15.05x | — | 152.43x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AUPH leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AUPH delivers a 64.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $64 in annual profit, vs $-54 for ZNTL. PRAX 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), AUPH scores 7/9 vs ZNTL's 1/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -53.6% | +64.5% | -43.0% | -12.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -40.7% | +47.6% | -40.2% | -3.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -40.5% | +16.6% | -65.0% | +5.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -48.5% | +18.9% | -49.3% | +5.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.18x | 0.13x | 0.00x | 1.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4M | -$5M | -$357M | $269M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $36M | $80M | $357M | $214M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $40M | $75M | $110,000 | $483M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 16.47x | — | 1.00x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PRAX leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FOLD five years ago would be worth $13,644 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $627 for ZNTL. Over the past 12 months, PRAX leads with a +456.0% total return vs AUPH's +95.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRAX at 158.5% vs ZNTL's -47.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +156.9% | +3.3% | -13.4% | +1.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +137.8% | +95.9% | +456.0% | +136.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -85.4% | +58.2% | +1628.1% | +11.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.7% | +23.3% | -17.6% | +36.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -84.8% | +500.4% | -40.5% | +147.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -47.4% | +16.5% | +158.5% | +3.7% |
Risk & Volatility
FOLD leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FOLD is the less volatile stock with a 0.50 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ZNTL's 2.41 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 ZNTL's 50.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.26x | 0.95x | 1.55x | 0.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.95 | $16.88 | $366.52 | $14.50 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.13 | $7.29 | $37.19 | $5.51 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +50.6% | +93.9% | +67.7% | +99.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.4 | 50.5 | 28.6 | 72.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.3M | 1.1M | 394K | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ZNTL as "Buy", AUPH as "Buy", PRAX as "Buy", FOLD as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 184.1% upside for ZNTL (target: $10) vs -20.5% for AUPH (target: $13).
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.00 | $12.60 | $607.15 | $14.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 14 | 16 | 24 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +4.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
AUPH leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). PRAX leads in 1 (Total Returns).
ZNTL vs AUPH vs PRAX vs FOLD: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(AUPH) is the stronger pick with 20. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (AUPH) offers the better valuation at 7. 7x trailing P/E (16. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ZNTL) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
On forward P/E, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
is actually cheaper at 16. 5x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
Over the past 5 years, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) delivered a total return of +36. 4%, compared to -93. 7% for Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ZNTL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AUPH returned +499. 2% versus ZNTL's -83. 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 — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 48β versus Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 's 2. 26β — meaning ZNTL is approximately 369% more volatile than FOLD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX) 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 — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(AUPH) is pulling ahead at 20. 4% versus -100. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc. (PRAX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. grew EPS 51. 7% year-over-year, compared to -32. 0% for Praxis Precision Medicines, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AUPH leads at 28. 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 — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(AUPH) is the more profitable company, earning 101. 5% net margin versus -4. 3% for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 101. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AUPH leads at 37. 1% versus 0. 0% for PRAX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AUPH leads at 88. 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.
07Is ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(AUPH) trades at 16. 5x forward P/E versus 40. 6x for Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. — 24. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ZNTL: 184. 1% to $10. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD?
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 ZNTL or AUPH or PRAX or FOLD better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
(FOLD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 48), +147. 3% 10Y return). Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ZNTL) carries a higher beta of 2. 26 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FOLD: +147. 3%, ZNTL: -83. 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 ZNTL and AUPH and PRAX and FOLD?
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: ZNTL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AUPH is a small-cap high-growth stock; PRAX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; FOLD is a small-cap high-growth 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.