Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADMA scored 86.3, INCY scored 84.1 — ADMA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ADMA's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but INCY's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
ADMA
ADMA Biologics, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
86.3
$10.36 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.2
ADMA leads
INCY
Incyte Corporation
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
84.1
$112.79 · $22.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINCY14.4x
Fastest growthINCY+21.5%
Strongest balance sheetINCY0.01
Highest qualityADMA87 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueINCY-31%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ADMA
stronger →← stronger
INCY
87
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
83
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
81
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
83
ADMA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADMA
INCY
$116mC
FCF
$1.4bC+
+19.6%B+
Rev
+21.5%A-
0.50B
D/E
0.01A
14.8xA-
P/E
14.4xA-
0.80A-
PEG
10.82D
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ADMA
INCY
28% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
31% below
~4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~0%/yr
+13%
1-yr DCF upside
+26%
+38%
5-yr DCF upside
+44%
+88%
10-yr DCF upside
+76%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADMA
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
Earnings outpace cash
INCY
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
ADMAADMA Biologics, Inc.
Biotechnology · $10.36 · beta 0.69
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $2.3b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $20.46 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.80 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $17.00 (implying +64% upside).
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 42% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Pharma moat is patent runway + pipeline depth — a single approved molecule funds the next generation of bets. Late-stage trials carry binary readouts that swing valuation 30%+.
Risk
Down 49% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trial-readout binary — late-stage clinical trials carry approve/reject outcomes that swing valuation 30%+; the equity is effectively a portfolio of these binary events, not a steady cash-flow business.
INCYIncyte Corporation
Biotechnology · $112.79 · beta 0.74
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $22.9b. 15% off the 52-week high of $132.60. Revenue growing +21%, comfortably above the S&P median. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $129.13 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Net margin 27% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 25% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 98% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Reimbursement risk — even an approved drug can fail commercially if payors don't reimburse; pricing pressure from Medicare and large PBMs has been accelerating since 2024.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors ADMA (86.3) over INCY (84.1), driven by ADMA's vastly superior PEG ratio of 0.80 (A-) compared to INCY's 10.82 (D). A contrarian might still prefer INCY for its lower implied growth rate of 0% priced into shares, suggesting less market optimism than ADMA's 4%. However, INCY also carries a caution signal of "Diluting shareholders."
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ADMA and INCY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.2 points in favor of ADMA. The widest single difference is Growth, where ADMA leads by 4.5 points.
GrowthADMA 91.4 · INCY 86.9ADMA +4.5
QualityADMA 87.1 · INCY 82.8ADMA +4.3
ValueADMA 80.8 · INCY 82.6level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is ADMA or INCY the better stock?
ADMA scores higher: ADMA 86.3, INCY 84.1 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do ADMA and INCY differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ADMA leads by 5 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ADMA also leads quality, while value is effectively level between them.
How are ADMA and INCY scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.