Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Banks - Diversified
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $412M | $6.90B | $63.60B | $1.96B | $2.98B | $355.61B | $896.00B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $0.00 | $14.92B | $52M | $132M | $49.28B | $280.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-112M | $-506M | $4.42B | $-290M | $-65M | $13.70B | $57.05B |
| Gross Margin | — | — | 84.5% | 87.2% | -64.2% | 61.7% | 60.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | — | 24.3% | -5.8% | -281.0% | 29.3% | 25.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 13.2x | — | — | 25.3x | 14.4x |
| Total Debt | $17M | $72K | $2.71B | $80M | $294M | $45.49B | $942.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $60M | $902M | $3.12B | $737M | $295M | $10.27B | $343.34B |
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 21 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aura Biosciences, I… (AURA) | 100 | 43.3 | -56.7% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 418.2 | +318.2% |
| Regeneron Pharmaceu… (REGN) | 100 | 95.7 | -4.3% |
| Ocular Therapeutix,… (OCUL) | 100 | 134.6 | +34.6% |
| Beam Therapeutics I… (BEAM) | 100 | 32.7 | -67.3% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 146.6 | +46.6% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 188.8 | +88.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AURA doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
IMVT ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +110.9% vs AURA's -3.9%
REGN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.51, Low D/E 8.7%, current ratio 4.13x
- Beta 0.51, yield 0.6%, current ratio 4.13x
- 29.6% margin vs OCUL's -5.6%
- Beta 0.51 vs BEAM's 2.18, lower leverage
In this particular matchup, OCUL is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
BEAM is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 120.0%, EPS growth 82.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.9%
- 120.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2%
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if dividends and efficiency is your priority.
- 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (4 stocks pay no dividend)
- 13.1% ROA vs AURA's -64.1%, ROIC 15.8% vs -72.4%
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.94, yield 1.9%
- 465.8% 10Y total return vs IMVT's 237.9%
- PEG 0.81 vs KO's 2.26
- Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 120.0% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | 29.6% margin vs OCUL's -5.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.51 vs BEAM's 2.18, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (4 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +110.9% vs AURA's -3.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs AURA's -64.1%, ROIC 15.8% vs -72.4% |
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM — 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.
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 7 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories
REGN leads 1 • AURA leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • OCUL leads 0 • BEAM leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
REGN leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $280.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. REGN is the more profitable business, keeping 29.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to OCUL's -5.6%. On growth, REGN holds the edge at +19.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $0 | $14.9B | $52M | $132M | $49.3B | $280.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$117M | -$532M | $4.2B | -$295M | -$355M | $15.5B | $81.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$112M | -$506M | $4.4B | -$290M | -$65M | $13.7B | $57.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$92M | -$407M | $4.2B | -$241M | -$384M | $12.6B | $100.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | — | +84.5% | +87.2% | -64.2% | +61.7% | +60.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | — | +24.3% | -5.8% | -2.8% | +29.3% | +25.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | — | +29.6% | -5.6% | -49.2% | +27.8% | +20.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | +27.9% | -4.6% | -2.9% | +25.5% | +36.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | +19.0% | +0.8% | -100.0% | +12.1% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.1% | -14.1% | -7.2% | -5.3% | +26.6% | +18.2% | +16.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — REGN and JPM each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.8x trailing earnings, REGN trades at a 46% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $412M | $6.9B | $63.6B | $2.0B | $3.0B | $355.6B | $896.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $369M | $6.0B | $63.2B | $1.3B | $3.0B | $390.8B | $1.50T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.64x | -12.14x | 14.76x | -6.30x | -35.84x | 27.18x | 16.00x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 13.18x | — | — | 25.27x | 14.40x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.33x | — | — | 2.43x | 0.90x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 15.33x | — | — | 26.39x | 18.36x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | — | 4.43x | 37.77x | 21.34x | 7.42x | 3.20x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.82x | 7.19x | 2.13x | 2.56x | 2.32x | 10.40x | 2.47x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 15.59x | — | — | 67.15x | 8.88x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-78 for AURA. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs IMVT's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -78.1% | -68.2% | +14.3% | -64.6% | -5.9% | +41.1% | +15.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -64.1% | -62.2% | +11.1% | -48.4% | -4.6% | +13.1% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -72.4% | — | +8.9% | — | -31.1% | +15.8% | +4.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -70.8% | -68.3% | +10.2% | -46.0% | -33.3% | +17.3% | +8.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.13x | 0.00x | 0.09x | 0.12x | 0.24x | 1.33x | 2.60x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$42M | -$902M | -$412M | -$657M | -$1M | $35.2B | $599.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $60M | $902M | $3.1B | $737M | $295M | $10.3B | $343.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17M | $72,000 | $2.7B | $80M | $294M | $45.5B | $942.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 108.44x | -24.63x | 1.08x | 10.70x | 0.74x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — IMVT and JPM each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in IMVT five years ago would be worth $31,304 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,157 for BEAM. Over the past 12 months, IMVT leads with a +110.9% total return vs AURA's -3.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors JPM at 33.6% vs AURA's -20.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +20.9% | +29.8% | -20.9% | -24.4% | +7.0% | +20.3% | -0.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.9% | +110.9% | +18.0% | -0.1% | +66.5% | +17.2% | +21.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -48.8% | +55.0% | -18.1% | +37.5% | -12.0% | +47.0% | +138.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | +213.0% | +16.8% | -36.9% | -68.4% | +65.6% | +118.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -56.7% | +237.9% | +68.2% | +39.7% | +54.8% | +121.1% | +465.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -20.0% | +15.7% | -6.4% | +11.2% | -4.2% | +13.7% | +33.6% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BEAM's 2.18 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs OCUL's 54.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.68x | 1.66x | 0.51x | 1.25x | 2.18x | -0.20x | 0.94x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.54 | $36.27 | $821.11 | $16.44 | $36.44 | $84.04 | $337.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.73 | $14.32 | $503.25 | $6.23 | $15.60 | $65.35 | $262.71 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +67.2% | +92.7% | +74.6% | +54.4% | +79.7% | +98.3% | +95.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 29.7 | 57.9 | 37.5 | 49.7 | 48.4 | 60.6 | 59.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 549K | 1.9M | 868K | 2.8M | 1.9M | 12.7M | 7.0M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AURA as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", REGN as "Buy", OCUL as "Buy", BEAM as "Buy", KO as "Buy", JPM as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 235.6% upside for OCUL (target: $30) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.46% vs REGN's 0.56%.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $17.00 | $43.67 | $836.00 | $30.00 | $48.00 | $86.13 | $339.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 23 | 48 | 19 | 27 | 48 | 61 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +0.6% | — | — | +2.5% | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | 1 | — | 0 | 56 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $3.41 | — | — | $2.04 | $5.95 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +6.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +3.9% |
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). REGN leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
AURA vs IMVT vs REGN vs OCUL vs BEAM vs KO vs JPM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is the stronger pick with 120. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -18. 7% for Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (OCUL). Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (REGN) offers the better valuation at 14. 8x trailing P/E (13. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Aura Biosciences, Inc. (AURA) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
On trailing P/E, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(REGN) is the cheapest at 14. 8x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is actually cheaper at 13. 2x. 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 The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +213. 0%, compared to -68. 4% for Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: JPM returned +465. 8% versus AURA's -56. 7%. 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 — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Beam Therapeutics Inc. 's 2. 18β — meaning BEAM is approximately -1190% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Beam Therapeutics Inc.
(BEAM) is pulling ahead at 120. 0% versus -18. 7% for Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (OCUL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Beam Therapeutics Inc. grew EPS 82. 3% year-over-year, compared to -16. 4% for Ocular Therapeutix, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BEAM leads at 31. 9% 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 — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(REGN) is the more profitable company, earning 31. 4% net margin versus -513. 2% for Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -521. 0% for OCUL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — OCUL leads at 87. 3%, 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 AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM 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 The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (REGN) trades at 13. 2x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 12. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for OCUL: 235. 6% to $30. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield), REGN (0. 6% yield) pay a dividend. AURA, IMVT, OCUL, BEAM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AURA or IMVT or REGN or OCUL or BEAM or KO or JPM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) carries a higher beta of 2. 18 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, BEAM: +54. 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 AURA and IMVT and REGN and OCUL and BEAM and KO and JPM?
These companies operate in different sectors (AURA (Healthcare) and IMVT (Healthcare) and REGN (Healthcare) and OCUL (Healthcare) and BEAM (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and JPM (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: AURA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IMVT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; REGN is a mid-cap deep-value stock; OCUL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BEAM is a small-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock. REGN, KO, JPM pay a dividend while AURA, IMVT, OCUL, BEAM 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.