Aurinia Pharmaceuticals vs Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International
AUPH and KNSA side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AUPH and KNSA compare
Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International is the larger company, worth 7.2 times as much as Aurinia Pharmaceuticals ($15.1B against $2.1B).
On earnings, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals is cheaper: it trades at 6.9× trailing earnings, against 74.1× for Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International.
Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (58.2% versus 21.0% for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals).
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 97.7% compared with 11.6% at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International.
Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals), 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 | AUPH | KNSA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.1B | $15.1B |
| Share price | $15.73 | $96.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 1.2% | 137% |
| Change, 5 years | −44.7% | 690% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.06 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 128 | 366 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 6.9× (better) | 74.1× |
| P/S | 6.6× (better) | 16.0× |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 21.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.7× (better) | 110× |
| P/FCF | – | 76.8× |
| FCF yield | – | 1.3% |
| Fair value | $41.31 | $17.17 |
| Margin of safety | 61.9% (better) | −461% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.0% | 58.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 41.4% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 304% (better) | 205% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 309% (better) | 189% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 90.6% (better) | 90.2% |
| Operating margin | 48.6% (better) | 13.8% |
| Net margin | 97.7% (better) | 11.6% |
| FCF margin | – | 20.8% |
| Return on equity | 61.4% (better) | 17.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 34.6% | 60.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 40.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 6.12 (better) | 3.91 |
| Altman Z-score | 8.32 | 34.82 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 3.6% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.6% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 58.3% | 29.9% |
| Held by insiders | 17.3% | 5.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $24.6M (better) | −$122M |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.4% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- AUPH stock overview
- AUPH income statement
- AUPH valuation and score
- KNSA stock overview
- KNSA income statement
- KNSA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.