COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
ADMA vs HALO
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADMA scored 81.3, HALO scored 79.5 — ADMA leads.
Compare another set
ADMA
ADMA Biologics, Inc.
81.3
$9.84 · $2.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.8
ADMA leads
HALO
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
79.5
$106.12 · $12.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestADMA14.1x
- Fastest growthHALO+41.2%
- Highest qualityHALO96 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueHALO-40%
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
HALO
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
96
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
54
HALO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADMA
HALO
$116mC
FCF
$806mC+
+8.0%B
Rev
+41.2%A
1.11C
D/E
—
14.1xA-
P/E
31.1xB
0.60A-
PEG
1.47B
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
HALO
32% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
40% below
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~0%/yr
+14%
1-yr DCF upside
+32%
+47%
5-yr DCF upside
+66%
+117%
10-yr DCF upside
+133%
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
HALO
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
ADMAADMA Biologics, Inc.
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $2.2b. Down 52% from 52-week high of $20.46 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.60 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $17.00 (implying +73% upside).
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 41% — 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 52% 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.
HALOHalozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $12.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $107.96 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $99.56 (implying -6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. FCF converts 195% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. 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
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 31x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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
The model slightly favors HALO (82.7) over ADMA (82.4) primarily due to HALO's perfect 100 Growth pillar score, driven by its robust +41.2% revenue expansion. However, a contrarian might prefer ADMA for its significantly higher Value pillar score of 81, reflecting a much lower P/E of 14.1x compared to HALO's 36.2x. Investors should note HALO's D grade for Debt/Equity at 9.91, indicating a more leveraged balance sheet.
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 HALO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.8 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.
- ValueADMA 83.0 · HALO 54.1ADMA +28.9
- GrowthADMA 76.9 · HALO 97.0HALO +20.1
- QualityADMA 84.1 · HALO 95.7HALO +11.6
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.