ADMA Biologics vs Repligen
ADMA and RGEN side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ADMA and RGEN compare
Repligen is the larger company, worth 3.9 times as much as ADMA Biologics ($10.0B against $2.6B).
Repligen grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.8% versus 8.0% for ADMA Biologics).
ADMA Biologics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 33.0% compared with −1.5% at Repligen.
ADMA Biologics scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 7 for Repligen), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ADMA | RGEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.6B | $10.0B |
| Share price | $11.41 | $176.94 |
| Change, 1 year | −26.5% | 19.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 739% | −33.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 1.50 |
| Employees | 647 | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.3× | – |
| P/S | 5.0× (better) | 12.4× |
| P/B | 6.3× | 4.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.3× (better) | 94.9× |
| P/FCF | 21.9× (better) | 93.6× |
| FCF yield | 4.6% (better) | 1.1% |
| Fair value | $18.80 | $79.82 |
| Margin of safety | 39.3% (better) | −122% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.0% | 13.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 64.6% (better) | 15.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −19.1% (better) | −779% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −17.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −5.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 64.7% (better) | 53.5% |
| Operating margin | 43.8% (better) | 2.3% |
| Net margin | 33.0% (better) | −1.5% |
| FCF margin | 22.7% (better) | 13.2% |
| Return on equity | 41.9% (better) | −0.57% |
| Return on invested capital | 45.1% (better) | 0.71% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.48 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.26 | – |
| Interest coverage | 25.4× (better) | 0.8× |
| Current ratio | 6.97 | 9.88 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 8.02 | 8.14 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 7.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 7.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.8% | 117% |
| Held by insiders | 3.0% | 0.67% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.1M (better) | −$14.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.5% | 13.5% |
Go deeper
- ADMA stock overview
- ADMA income statement
- ADMA valuation and score
- RGEN stock overview
- RGEN income statement
- RGEN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.