Alumis vs NewAmsterdam Pharma
ALMS and NAMS side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ALMS and NAMS compare
NewAmsterdam Pharma keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −3644% compared with −5933% at Alumis.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ALMS | NAMS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $871M | – |
| Share price | $6.73 | $20.06 |
| Change, 1 year | 42.9% | −44.0% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 104% |
| Beta (5Y) | −1.18 | 0.81 |
| Employees | 224 | 100 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 6 |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 118× | – |
| P/B | 1.9× | – |
| FCF yield | −40.4% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | – | −88.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | −6204% | −3432% (better) |
| Net margin | −5933% | −3644% (better) |
| FCF margin | −4755% | −2018% (better) |
| Return on equity | −93.6% | −36.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | −1046% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Current ratio | 6.74 | 9.03 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.23 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.3% | – |
| Held by insiders | 30.5% | 22.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $60.1M (better) | −$61.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.5% | – |
Go deeper
- ALMS stock overview
- ALMS income statement
- ALMS valuation and score
- NAMS stock overview
- NAMS income statement
- NAMS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.