Halozyme Therapeutics vs Neurocrine Biosciences
HALO and NBIX side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HALO and NBIX compare
Halozyme Therapeutics and Neurocrine Biosciences are about the same size, with market caps of $14.9B and $14.9B.
On earnings, Neurocrine Biosciences is cheaper: it trades at 21.4× trailing earnings, against 38.6× for Halozyme Therapeutics.
Halozyme Therapeutics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (41.2% versus 34.4% for Neurocrine Biosciences).
Halozyme Therapeutics keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 24.9% compared with 20.9% at Neurocrine Biosciences.
Neurocrine Biosciences scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 13 for Halozyme Therapeutics), 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 | HALO | NBIX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.9B | $14.9B |
| Share price | $130.91 | $146.10 |
| Change, 1 year | 101% | 5.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 222% | 56.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.71 | 0.49 |
| Employees | 423 | 1,800 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 38.6× | 21.4× (better) |
| P/S | 8.9× | 4.4× (better) |
| P/B | 104× | 4.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 27.5× | 18.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.4× | 17.1× (better) |
| PEG | 1.83 | 0.49 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.4% | 5.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $69.98 | $177.51 |
| Margin of safety | −87.1% | 17.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 41.2% (better) | 34.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 39.2% (better) | 22.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −25.8% | 103% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −22.4% | 102% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 82.4% | 98.0% (better) |
| Operating margin | 35.9% (better) | 23.6% |
| Net margin | 24.9% (better) | 20.9% |
| FCF margin | 48.5% (better) | 25.8% |
| Return on equity | 174% (better) | 22.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 21.7% | 23.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 14.95 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.24 | – |
| Interest coverage | 29.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.71 (better) | 1.87 |
| Altman Z-score | 5.43 | 6.83 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | −0.84% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% (better) | −0.84% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 99.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$41.2M (better) | −$77.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.7% | 5.8% |
Go deeper
- HALO stock overview
- HALO income statement
- HALO valuation and score
- NBIX stock overview
- NBIX income statement
- NBIX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.