Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Banks - Diversified
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Banks - Diversified | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $290M | $20.02B | $30.37B | $1.19B | $24.45B | $896.00B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $746M | $3.25B | $2.50B | $413M | $4.39B | $280.33B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-99M | $-208M | $-226M | $-8M | $853M | $57.05B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 42.1% | 69.7% | 65.2% | 48.2% | 67.1% | 60.0% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -13.9% | -6.4% | -13.0% | -3.3% | 20.9% | 25.9% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 61.9x | 582.8x | — | 24.6x | 30.8x | 14.4x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $472M | $2.52B | $214M | $20M | $2.55B | $942.38B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $160M | $956M | $1.08B | $65M | $1.42B | $343.34B | $10.27B |
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) | 100 | 36.0 | -64.0% |
| Exact Sciences Corp… (EXAS) | 100 | 118.9 | +18.9% |
| Natera, Inc. (NTRA) | 100 | 425.3 | +325.3% |
| CareDx, Inc (CDNA) | 100 | 64.8 | -35.2% |
| Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) | 100 | 44.7 | -55.3% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NEO doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
EXAS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 17.7%, EPS growth 80.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 15.9%
- +94.2% vs KO's +17.2%
NTRA is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 17.3% 10Y total return vs JPM's 465.8%
- 35.9% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8%
CDNA is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.17, Low D/E 6.5%, current ratio 2.86x
ILMN is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- 13.4% ROA vs NTRA's -10.4%, ROIC 16.8% vs -36.1%
JPM has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 0.94, yield 1.9%
- PEG 0.81 vs ILMN's 7.29
- Beta 0.94, yield 1.9%, current ratio 0.52x
- Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26
- Beta 0.94 vs NEO's 1.37
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and dividends is your priority.
- 27.8% margin vs NEO's -13.3%
- 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (5 stocks pay no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 35.9% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs NEO's -13.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.94 vs NEO's 1.37 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.9%, (5 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +94.2% vs KO's +17.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs NTRA's -10.4%, ROIC 16.8% vs -36.1% |
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 7 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
JPM leads in 1 of 6 categories
ILMN leads 1 • NTRA leads 1 • KO leads 1 • NEO leads 0 • EXAS leads 0 • CDNA leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — CDNA and KO 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 — 679.1x CDNA's $413M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NEO's -13.3%. On growth, CDNA holds the edge at +39.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $746M | $3.2B | $2.5B | $413M | $4.4B | $280.3B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$54M | -$41M | -$313M | $2M | $1.1B | $81.4B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$99M | -$208M | -$226M | -$8M | $853M | $57.0B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$5M | $357M | $92M | $65M | $989M | $100.9B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +42.1% | +69.7% | +65.2% | +48.2% | +67.1% | +60.0% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -13.9% | -6.4% | -13.0% | -3.3% | +20.9% | +25.9% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.3% | -6.4% | -9.0% | -2.0% | +19.4% | +20.4% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.7% | +11.0% | +3.7% | +15.8% | +22.5% | +36.0% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.1% | +23.1% | +38.8% | +39.0% | +4.8% | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +35.0% | +90.4% | -20.0% | +126.3% | +6.1% | +16.0% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
JPM leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 46% valuation discount to ILMN's 29.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs ILMN's 6.98x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $290M | $20.0B | $30.4B | $1.2B | $24.5B | $896.0B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $603M | $21.6B | $29.5B | $1.1B | $25.6B | $1.50T | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.65x | -95.37x | -139.52x | -57.42x | 29.54x | 16.00x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 61.94x | 582.83x | — | 24.59x | 30.83x | 14.40x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 6.98x | 0.90x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 345.49x | — | — | — | 22.56x | 18.36x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.40x | 6.16x | 13.17x | 3.12x | 5.64x | 3.20x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.34x | 8.24x | 16.93x | 4.04x | 9.22x | 2.47x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 56.10x | 278.35x | 32.85x | 26.26x | 8.88x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN 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 $-15 for NTRA. CDNA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to JPM's 2.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ILMN scores 8/9 vs JPM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -11.8% | -8.7% | -15.1% | -2.6% | +32.8% | +15.9% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -7.2% | -3.5% | -10.4% | -1.9% | +13.4% | +1.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -4.3% | -3.6% | -36.1% | -5.7% | +16.8% | +4.5% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.1% | -4.0% | -18.3% | -5.8% | +17.6% | +8.9% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.56x | 1.05x | 0.13x | 0.06x | 0.94x | 2.60x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $313M | $1.6B | -$862M | -$46M | $1.1B | $599.0B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $160M | $956M | $1.1B | $65M | $1.4B | $343.3B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $472M | $2.5B | $214M | $20M | $2.6B | $942.4B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -30.15x | -5.47x | -34.29x | — | 12.09x | 0.74x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NTRA leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in JPM five years ago would be worth $21,820 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,538 for CDNA. Over the past 12 months, EXAS leads with a +94.2% total return vs KO's +17.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NTRA at 62.4% vs NEO's -11.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -5.2% | +3.1% | -7.3% | +20.0% | +19.8% | -0.5% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +50.9% | +94.2% | +29.0% | +22.0% | +82.7% | +21.8% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -31.0% | +15.2% | +328.7% | +176.7% | -20.4% | +138.2% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -74.4% | -16.1% | +104.4% | -74.6% | -63.4% | +118.2% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.1% | +1390.2% | +1731.3% | +388.7% | +18.6% | +465.8% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -11.6% | +4.8% | +62.4% | +40.4% | -7.3% | +33.6% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — EXAS and KO each lead in 1 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 NEO's 1.37 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. EXAS currently trades 99.9% from its 52-week high vs NEO's 81.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.37x | -0.05x | 1.24x | 1.17x | 0.99x | 0.94x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $13.74 | $104.98 | $256.36 | $24.13 | $177.22 | $337.25 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.72 | $38.81 | $131.81 | $10.96 | $85.77 | $262.71 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.1% | +99.9% | +82.7% | +95.2% | +90.8% | +95.1% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 70.8 | 76.4 | 55.9 | 64.3 | 66.4 | 59.1 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.9M | 21.6M | 1.4M | 694K | 1.7M | 7.0M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NEO as "Buy", EXAS as "Buy", NTRA as "Buy", CDNA as "Buy", ILMN as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 70.4% upside for NEO (target: $19) vs -5.9% for ILMN (target: $151). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.46% vs JPM's 1.86%.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $19.00 | $105.00 | $261.00 | $24.00 | $151.40 | $339.75 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 29 | 41 | 27 | 13 | 50 | 61 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | — | +1.9% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | — | — | — | 15 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | — | $5.95 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.1% | 0.0% | +7.4% | +3.0% | +3.9% | +0.2% |
JPM leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). ILMN leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
NEO vs EXAS vs NTRA vs CDNA vs ILMN vs JPM vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) is the stronger pick with 35. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). 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 NeoGenomics, Inc. (NEO) a "Buy" — based on 29 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 — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 16. 0x versus Illumina, Inc. at 29. 5x. On forward P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is actually cheaper at 14. 4x. 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 Illumina, Inc. 's 7. 29x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -74. 6% for CareDx, Inc (CDNA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +1731% versus ILMN's +18. 6%. 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 — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus NeoGenomics, Inc. 's 1. 37β — meaning NEO is approximately -785% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CareDx, Inc (CDNA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 3% for JPMorgan Chase & Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Natera, Inc.
(NTRA) is pulling ahead at 35. 9% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to -143. 0% for CareDx, Inc. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 41. 1% 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 — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -14. 9% for NeoGenomics, 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 -13. 4% for NTRA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EXAS leads at 69. 7%, 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 NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO 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 Illumina, Inc. 's 7. 29x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) trades at 14. 4x forward P/E versus 582. 8x for Exact Sciences Corporation — 568. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NEO: 70. 4% to $19. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield), JPM (1. 9% yield) pay a dividend. NEO, EXAS, NTRA, CDNA, ILMN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NEO or EXAS or NTRA or CDNA or ILMN or JPM or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
05), +1390% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EXAS: +1390%, NEO: +42. 1%), 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 NEO and EXAS and NTRA and CDNA and ILMN and JPM and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (NEO (Healthcare) and EXAS (Healthcare) and NTRA (Healthcare) and CDNA (Healthcare) and ILMN (Healthcare) and JPM (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: NEO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; EXAS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CDNA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ILMN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. JPM, KO pay a dividend while NEO, EXAS, NTRA, CDNA, ILMN 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.