$11.27
+5.7% 1M -15.8% 1Y
- Market cap
- $824.61M
- P/E
- –
- Revenue (TTM)
- $111.86M
- Div. yield
- –
Labcorp Holdings leads on 6 of the 12 questions below (Labcorp Holdings 6, Thermo Fisher Scientific 3). Which ones matter depends on what you are buying for; a cheap multiple and slow growth often come together.
| Question | DNA | LH | TMO | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Larger companyMarket capitalisation | $824.61M | $29.71B | $260.32B | TMO |
| Cheaper on earningsLower P/E, profitable companies only | -2.8x | 29.6x | 36.8x | LH |
| Cheaper on forward earningsLower price / next fiscal year consensus EPS | — | 19.4x | 26.8x | LH |
| Faster revenue growthRevenue growth, trailing twelve months | -46.8% | +6.4% | +8.3% | TMO |
| More profitableNet margin, trailing twelve months | -260.0% | 7.0% | — | LH |
| Better return on capitalReturn on invested capital | — | 8.2% | — | – |
| Less leveragedLower net debt / EBITDA | — | 2.6x | — | – |
| Higher dividend yieldTrailing dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | – |
| Better 1-year returnPrice return, last 12 months | -15.8% | +20.2% | +23.0% | TMO |
| Better 5-year returnAnnualised price return, 5 years | -54.4%/yr | +6.2%/yr | +2.3%/yr | LH |
| Less volatileAnnualised volatility, 1 year | 101.5% | 24.0% | 29.8% | LH |
| Higher overall scoreMean of the five percentile scores vs peers | 43/100 | 56/100 | 51/100 | LH |
Each axis is the mean percentile of its metrics against the company's industry group. 100 is the best in the group, 50 the middle.
| Axis | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation | 10 #10 of 11 | 62 #36 of 92 | 50 #113 of 227 |
| Growth | 50 #6 of 11 | 30 #61 of 87 | 41 #130 of 219 |
| Profitability | 10 #10 of 11 | 68 #28 of 86 | 70 #63 of 206 |
| Financial Health | 100 #1 of 13 | 47 #52 of 97 | – |
| Shareholder Returns | – | 73 #16 of 56 | 44 #76 of 134 |
| Overall | 43 | 56 | 51 |
Price return, split-adjusted, before dividends. Click a name to hide or show it.
| Period | DNA | LH | TMO | SPY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | +5.7% | +7.1% | +2.9% | -0.2% |
| 3 months | +46.4% | +5.4% | +20.3% | +3.9% |
| 6 months | +43.6% | +27.7% | +47.4% | +8.2% |
| Year to date | +35.6% | +32.1% | +19.7% | +12.9% |
| 1 year | -15.8% | +20.2% | +23.0% | +12.3% |
| 3 years | -79.1% | +66.6% | +60.7% | +87.4% |
| 3 years, per year | -40.7% | +18.6% | +17.1% | +23.3% |
| 5 years | -98.0% | +35.2% | +11.8% | +67.9% |
| 5 years, per year | -54.4% | +6.2% | +2.3% | +10.9% |
| 10 years | — | +211.2% | +364.6% | +261.1% |
| 10 years, per year | — | +12.0% | +16.6% | +13.7% |
| Measure | DNA | LH | TMO | SPY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatility, 1Y | 101.5% | 24.0% | 29.8% | 12.7% |
| Downside volatility, 1Y | 103.1% | 24.1% | 28.3% | 12.7% |
| Beta vs S&P 500, 1Y | 3.03 | 0.34 | 0.62 | 1.00 |
| Return / volatility, 1Y | -0.16 | 0.84 | 0.77 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown, 5Y | -99.1% | -35.0% | -41.5% | -25.4% |
| From 52-week high | -24.8% | -2.4% | -0.5% | -1.2% |
| 52-week high | $14.98 | $339.40 | $696.55 | $779.14 |
| 52-week low | $5.48 | $246.64 | $438.34 | $631.97 |
Weekly multiples on trailing twelve-month fundamentals. Negative or extreme readings (a loss year, a collapsed denominator) are left out so the chart stays readable.
| Multiple | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E now vs peer median | -2.4xmedian 32.1x | 27.0xmedian 24.6x | 36.4xmedian 29.6x |
| P/S now vs peer median | 6.4xmedian 2.6x | 1.9xmedian 1.6x | 5.4xmedian 2.9x |
| EV/EBITDA now vs peer median | -2.7xmedian 38.1x | 14.8xmedian 14.6x | —median 17.4x |
| P/FCF now vs peer median | -4.1xmedian 21.5x | 23.2xmedian 21.6x | 34.0xmedian 22.3x |
| P/B now vs peer median | 1.7xmedian 3.1x | 3.1xmedian 3.2x | 4.7xmedian 2.3x |
| PEG now vs peer median | 0.02median 2.03 | 2.87median 0.66 | 4.80median 1.04 |
Reported figures by fiscal period, placed on the calendar year (or quarter) each period ended in, so companies with different fiscal years line up.
| Trailing twelve months | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $111.86M | $14.35B | $47.35B |
| Gross profit | $92.92M | $4.14B | – |
| Operating income | -$290.69M | $1.50B | $8.47B |
| Net income | -$290.80M | $1.00B | $7.09B |
| Free cash flow | -$174.80M | $1.16B | – |
| R&D | $215.61M | – | $1.40B |
| EPS (diluted) | $-5.24 | $12.22 | $19.06 |
| Cash & equivalents | $84.54M | $141.80M | $5.46B |
| Total debt | – | $5.86B | – |
| Shares (diluted) | 55.46M | 82.00M | 371.00M |
| Enterprise value | $62.53M | $27.46B | $260.32B |
Bold marks the best reading: the lowest positive value for multiples, leverage and payout, the highest for everything else. The bar under each value is its percentile against that company's own peers. Hover a value for its rank and the peer median.
| Metric | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | -2.4x | 27.0x | 36.4x |
| P/FCF | -4.1x | 23.2x | 34.0x |
| P/Operating cash flow | -4.2x | 16.4x | 27.5x |
| P/S | 6.4x | 1.9x | 5.4x |
| P/B | 1.7x | 3.1x | 4.7x |
| P/Tangible book | 1.9x | 5.4x | 7.0x |
| EV/EBITDA | -2.7x | 14.8x | – |
| EV/EBIT | -2.2x | 21.7x | – |
| EV/Revenue | 5.7x | 2.3x | 5.4x |
| EV/FCF | -3.6x | 28.2x | – |
| EV/Operating cash flow | -3.7x | 19.9x | 27.5x |
| PEG (3Y EPS CAGR) | 0.02 | 2.87 | 4.80 |
| Metric | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (1Y) | -46.8% | 6.4% | 8.3% |
| Revenue CAGR (3Y) | -30.0% | 6.5% | 2.9% |
| Gross profit growth (1Y) | -49.3% | 9.2% | – |
| Gross profit CAGR (3Y) | -28.2% | 7.1% | – |
| Operating income growth (1Y) | 2.4% | 25.6% | 12.8% |
| Operating income CAGR (3Y) | 39.1% | 14.4% | 7.2% |
| Net income growth (1Y) | 7.7% | 31.3% | 7.9% |
| Net income CAGR (3Y) | 38.0% | 6.5% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (1Y) | 8.7% | 34.3% | 9.7% |
| EPS CAGR (3Y) | -102.3% | 9.4% | 7.6% |
| Operating cash flow growth (1Y) | 28.4% | -3.3% | 21.9% |
| Operating cash flow CAGR (3Y) | 16.9% | 3.0% | 4.5% |
| Free cash flow growth (1Y) | 36.2% | -8.4% | – |
| Free cash flow CAGR (3Y) | 22.1% | 0.5% | – |
| Metric | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross margin | 83.1% | 28.9% | – |
| EBITDA margin | -211.6% | 15.3% | – |
| Operating margin | -259.9% | 10.4% | – |
| Pretax margin | -264.1% | 8.6% | – |
| Net margin | -260.0% | 7.0% | – |
| FCF margin | -156.3% | 8.1% | – |
| Operating cash flow margin | -152.2% | 11.4% | 19.7% |
| Return on equity | -67.4% | 11.6% | 13.2% |
| Return on assets | -28.7% | 5.3% | 6.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 8.2% | – |
| Return on capital employed | -31.0% | 9.0% | – |
| Asset turnover | 0.1x | 0.8x | 0.4x |
| Cash conversion (OCF / net income) | 0.6x | 1.6x | 1.3x |
| Stock comp / revenue | 61.5% | 0.9% | – |
| Metric | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Debt / assets | – | 31.6% | – |
| Debt / equity | – | 0.7x | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.6x | – |
| Debt / FCF | – | 5.1x | – |
| Liabilities / assets | 57.5% | 53.6% | – |
| Equity / assets | 42.5% | 46.4% | 47.9% |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.6x | – |
| Current ratio | 4.6x | 1.8x | 1.8x |
| Quick ratio | 1.4x | 1.2x | – |
| Cash ratio | 1.2x | 0.1x | – |
| Altman Z-score | -8.66 | 3.43 | – |
Solid lines are reported fiscal-year results; dashed lines are the consensus for the years ahead. Hover a year for the analysts' high and low, and how each result compared with its estimate.
| Consensus | DNA | LH | TMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forward P/E | – | 19.4xFY2026 | 26.8xFY2026 |
| EPS, next fiscal year | $-4.06FY2026 | $17.07FY2026 | $25.91FY2026 |
| EPS growth, next FY | – | +3.8%FY2026 | +13.3%FY2026 |
| EPS growth, the year after | – | +9.3% | +2.0% |
| Revenue, next fiscal year | $88.21MFY2026 | $14.31BFY2026 | $50.12BFY2026 |
| Revenue growth, next FY | -48.2%FY2026 | +2.6%FY2026 | +12.5%FY2026 |
| Revenue growth, the year after | +5.8% | +11.9% | -2.8% |
1.00 means two stocks move in lockstep, 0 that they move independently. Pairs below about 0.5 diversify each other.
| DNA | LH | TMO | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA | 1.00 | 0.10 | 0.31 |
| LH | 0.10 | 1.00 | 0.44 |
| TMO | 0.31 | 0.44 | 1.00 |
Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) is the largest by market capitalisation: Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) $824.61M, Labcorp Holdings (LH) $29.71B, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) $260.32B.
Labcorp Holdings (LH) trades on the lowest price-to-earnings ratio (Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) -2.8x, Labcorp Holdings (LH) 29.6x, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) 36.8x). On next year's consensus earnings, Labcorp Holdings (LH) is cheapest (Labcorp Holdings (LH) 19.4x, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) 26.8x). A lower multiple can reflect slower expected growth, so read it next to the growth figures.
Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) grew revenue fastest over the trailing twelve months: Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) -46.8%, Labcorp Holdings (LH) +6.4%, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) +8.3%.
Labcorp Holdings (LH) has the highest net margin (Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) -260.0%, Labcorp Holdings (LH) 7.0%).
Over the past year Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) returned the most: Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) -15.8%, Labcorp Holdings (LH) +20.2%, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) +23.0%. Over five years, Labcorp Holdings (LH) compounded fastest (Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) -54.4%/yr, Labcorp Holdings (LH) +6.2%/yr, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) +2.3%/yr). Returns are price only, before dividends.
By one-year price volatility, Labcorp Holdings (LH) has been the steadiest (Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) 101.5%, Labcorp Holdings (LH) 24.0%, Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) 29.8%). Volatility measures how widely the price swings, not the risk of the business.
There is no single answer; it depends on what you are buying for. On the 12 head-to-head measures on this page, Labcorp Holdings (LH) leads on 6. Business Quant does not give investment advice; use the comparison as a starting point for your own research.
Data from SEC filings, exchange prices and consensus estimates, via Business Quant. Percentile scores compare each company with its own peer group, so two companies' scores are each relative to different peers unless you rank against the whole market. Price returns exclude dividends. Nothing on this page is investment advice.