Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ARGX scored 77.2, ADMA scored 86.3 — ADMA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ADMA's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but ARGX's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
ARGX
argenx SE
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
77.2
$825.03 · $51.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.1
ADMA leads
ADMA
ADMA Biologics, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
86.3
$10.36 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADMA14.8x
Fastest growthARGX+89.9%
Strongest balance sheetARGX0.01
Highest qualityADMA87 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueADMA-28%
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)
ARGX
stronger →← stronger
ADMA
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
98
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
65
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
ADMA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ARGX
ADMA
$679mC+
FCF
$116mC
+89.9%A
Rev
+19.6%B+
0.01A
D/E
0.50B
31.2xB
P/E
14.8xA-
1.00B+
PEG
0.80A-
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
ARGX
ADMA
229% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
28% below
~47%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
-77%
1-yr DCF upside
+13%
-70%
5-yr DCF upside
+38%
-55%
10-yr DCF upside
+88%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ARGX
ADMA
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
Earnings outpace cash
The companies
ARGXargenx SE
Biotechnology · $825.03 · beta -0.04
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $51.9b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $1072.75 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +90% — in hypergrowth territory. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,154 (implying +40% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $51.9b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 12.5x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. 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.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 ARGX and ADMA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.1 points in favor of ADMA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueARGX 65.1 · ADMA 80.8ADMA +15.7
QualityARGX 72.1 · ADMA 87.1ADMA +15.0
GrowthARGX 98.0 · ADMA 91.4ARGX +6.6
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 ARGX the better stock?
ADMA scores higher: ADMA 86.3, ARGX 77.2 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 ARGX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ADMA leads by 16 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are ADMA and ARGX 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.