Halozyme Therapeutics vs Bio-Techne
HALO and TECH side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HALO and TECH compare
Halozyme Therapeutics is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Bio-Techne ($14.9B against $11.4B).
On earnings, Halozyme Therapeutics is cheaper: it trades at 38.6× trailing earnings, against 62.6× for Bio-Techne.
Halozyme Therapeutics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (41.2% versus −0.38% for Bio-Techne).
Bio-Techne pays a dividend yielding 0.44%; Halozyme Therapeutics does not pay one.
Halozyme Therapeutics scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Bio-Techne), 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 | TECH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.9B | $11.4B |
| Share price | $130.91 | $72.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 101% | 17.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 222% | −41.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.71 | 1.08 |
| Employees | 423 | 3,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 38.6× (better) | 62.6× |
| P/S | 8.9× (better) | 9.4× |
| P/B | 104× | 5.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 27.5× (better) | 32.4× |
| P/FCF | 18.4× (better) | 43.3× |
| PEG | 1.83 | – |
| FCF yield | 5.4% (better) | 2.3% |
| Fair value | $69.98 | $52.72 |
| Margin of safety | −87.1% | −37.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 41.2% (better) | −0.38% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 39.2% (better) | 5.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −25.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −22.4% | 152% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 23.0% (better) | 5.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 82.4% (better) | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | 35.9% (better) | 20.7% |
| Net margin | 24.9% | – |
| FCF margin | 48.5% (better) | 21.7% |
| Return on equity | 174% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 21.7% (better) | 9.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 14.95 | 0.09 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.24 (better) | −0.19 |
| Interest coverage | 29.4× (better) | 26.2× |
| Current ratio | 2.71 | 4.55 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.43 | 15.97 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.44% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.37% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.81% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.35% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$41.2M | −$437K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 13.7% | 4.7% |
Go deeper
- HALO stock overview
- HALO income statement
- HALO valuation and score
- TECH stock overview
- TECH income statement
- TECH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.