Biotechnology
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Biotechnology
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Biotechnology | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $494M | $6.90B | $2.40B | $7.04B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $12M | $0.00 | $236M | $51M | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-162M | $-506M | $-369M | $-315M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | — | 90.7% | 33.2% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -13.7% | — | -168.6% | -7.0% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | — | — | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $2M | $72K | $99M | $82M | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $213M | $902M | $222M | $357M | $10.27B |
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crescent Biopharma,… (CBIO) | 100 | 4.9 | -95.1% |
| Immunovant, Inc. (IMVT) | 100 | 99.0 | -1.0% |
| Arcus Biosciences, … (RCUS) | 100 | 100.0 | 0.0% |
| Kymera Therapeutics… (KYMR) | 100 | 270.2 | +170.2% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 166.8 | +66.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CBIO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- beta 0.87
- Lower volatility, beta 0.87, Low D/E 0.8%, current ratio 6.56x
- 365.3% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2%
- Beta 0.87 vs RCUS's 2.00, lower leverage
IMVT is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 237.9% 10Y total return vs KYMR's 159.2%
RCUS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +154.5% vs CBIO's +8.0%
KYMR is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 0.91, current ratio 10.47x
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 1.9%, EPS growth 23.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.7%
- 27.8% margin vs CBIO's -13.6%
- 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend
- 13.1% ROA vs CBIO's -88.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 365.3% revenue growth vs IMVT's -22.2% | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs CBIO's -13.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.87 vs RCUS's 2.00, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 56-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +154.5% vs CBIO's +8.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs CBIO's -88.2% |
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories
CBIO leads 0 • IMVT leads 0 • RCUS leads 0 • KYMR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO and IMVT operate at a comparable scale, with $49.3B and $0 in trailing revenue. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CBIO's -13.6%. On growth, KYMR holds the edge at +55.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $12M | $0 | $236M | $51M | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$163M | -$532M | -$391M | -$352M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$162M | -$506M | -$369M | -$315M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$27M | -$407M | -$489M | -$244M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | — | +90.7% | +33.2% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -13.7% | — | -168.6% | -7.0% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.6% | — | -156.4% | -6.1% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.3% | — | -2.1% | -4.7% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | -39.3% | +55.5% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +10.3% | -14.1% | +10.5% | +13.4% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — CBIO and KYMR and KO each lead in 1 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $494M | $6.9B | $2.4B | $7.0B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $283M | $6.0B | $2.3B | $6.8B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.40x | -12.14x | -7.23x | -23.36x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | — | — | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | — | — | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 45.56x | — | 9.70x | 179.54x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.92x | 7.19x | 4.05x | 4.61x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 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 $-101 for CBIO. IMVT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CBIO scores 7/9 vs RCUS's 0/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -100.9% | -68.2% | -69.0% | -25.0% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -88.2% | -62.2% | -35.3% | -22.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | — | -64.1% | -24.9% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -132.6% | -68.3% | -42.1% | -27.2% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.01x | 0.00x | 0.16x | 0.05x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$212M | -$902M | -$123M | -$275M | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $213M | $902M | $222M | $357M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2M | $72,000 | $99M | $82M | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -148.19x | — | -13.38x | -2119.53x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — IMVT and KYMR each lead in 2 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 $656 for CBIO. Over the past 12 months, RCUS leads with a +154.5% total return vs CBIO's +8.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors KYMR at 50.8% vs CBIO's -54.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +61.7% | +29.8% | +2.2% | +18.5% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +8.0% | +110.9% | +154.5% | +82.3% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -90.3% | +55.0% | +18.3% | +242.9% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -93.4% | +213.0% | -3.1% | +70.4% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.7% | +237.9% | +40.0% | +159.2% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -54.0% | +15.7% | +5.8% | +50.8% | +13.7% |
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 RCUS's 2.00 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 CBIO's 65.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.87x | 1.66x | 2.00x | 0.91x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $27.41 | $36.27 | $28.72 | $103.00 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $8.72 | $14.32 | $7.91 | $36.65 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +65.4% | +92.7% | +82.9% | +83.7% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.3 | 57.9 | 46.5 | 56.8 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 269K | 1.9M | 1.1M | 492K | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CBIO as "Buy", IMVT as "Buy", RCUS as "Buy", KYMR as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 84.2% upside for CBIO (target: $33) vs 4.2% for KO (target: $86). KO is the only dividend payer here at 2.46% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $33.00 | $43.67 | $31.00 | $112.60 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 23 | 18 | 26 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 3 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Profitability & Efficiency. 2 categories are tied.
CBIO vs IMVT vs RCUS vs KYMR vs KO: Key Questions Answered
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger pick with 1.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 7% for Kymera Therapeutics, Inc. (KYMR). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 27. 2x trailing P/E (25. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Crescent Biopharma, Inc. (CBIO) 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 is the better long-term investment — CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Immunovant, Inc.
(IMVT) delivered a total return of +213. 0%, compared to -93. 4% for Crescent Biopharma, Inc. (CBIO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMVT returned +237. 9% versus CBIO's -97. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Arcus Biosciences, Inc. 's 2. 00β — meaning RCUS is approximately -1098% 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 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which is growing faster — CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is pulling ahead at 1.
9% versus -16. 7% for Kymera Therapeutics, Inc. (KYMR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -815. 0% for Crescent Biopharma, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CBIO leads at 424. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -1419. 6% for Crescent Biopharma, Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -1407. 5% for CBIO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CBIO leads at 100. 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.
06Is CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CBIO: 84.
2% to $33. 00.
07Which pays a better dividend — CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. CBIO, IMVT, RCUS, KYMR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is CBIO or IMVT or RCUS or KYMR or KO 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). Arcus Biosciences, Inc. (RCUS) carries a higher beta of 2. 00 — 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%, RCUS: +40. 0%), 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.
09What are the main differences between CBIO and IMVT and RCUS and KYMR and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (CBIO (Healthcare) and IMVT (Healthcare) and RCUS (Healthcare) and KYMR (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
KO pays a dividend while CBIO, IMVT, RCUS, KYMR 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.