NEO vs NTRA vs EXAS vs ILMN vs PACB vs JPM

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.

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.

Over the past 5 years, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(JPM) delivered a total return of +118. 2%, compared to -95. 6% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +1731% versus PACB's -86. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Exact Sciences Corporation (EXAS) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

05β versus Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. 's 2. 73β — meaning PACB is approximately -5978% more volatile than EXAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Natera, Inc. (NTRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 142% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

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 -70. 1% for Pacific Biosciences of California, 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.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 20. 4% net margin versus -341. 5% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JPM leads at 26. 0% versus -348. 5% for PACB. 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.

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.

In this comparison, JPM (1.

9% yield) pays a dividend. NEO, NTRA, EXAS, ILMN, PACB do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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). Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB) carries a higher beta of 2. 73 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (EXAS: +1390%, PACB: -86. 6%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (NEO (Healthcare) and NTRA (Healthcare) and EXAS (Healthcare) and ILMN (Healthcare) and PACB (Healthcare) 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: NEO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; EXAS is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ILMN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PACB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock. JPM pays a dividend while NEO, NTRA, EXAS, ILMN, PACB 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.