Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HALO scored 83.1, INVA scored 76.1 — HALO leads.
Compare another set
HALO
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
83.1
$110.42 · $12.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.0
HALO leads
INVA
Innoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
76.1
$21.21 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINVA5.0x
Fastest growthHALO+41.2%
Highest qualityHALO89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueINVA-54%
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)
HALO
stronger →← stronger
INVA
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
98
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
71
66
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
92
HALO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HALO
INVA
$806mC+
FCF
$189mC
+41.2%A
Rev
+18.8%B+
—
D/E
0.27B
32.3xC+
P/E
5.0xA
1.47B
PEG
3.12D
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
HALO
INVA
40% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% below
~2%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-11%/yr
+27%
1-yr DCF upside
+97%
+66%
5-yr DCF upside
+117%
+146%
10-yr DCF upside
+150%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HALO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
INVA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
HALOHalozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · $110.42 · beta 0.88
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $12.5b. 6% off the 52-week high of $116.85. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.75 (implying -8% 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. 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
Trailing P/E 32x 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.
INVAInnoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · $21.21 · beta 0.38
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $1.5b. 16% off the 52-week high of $25.15. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $35.00 (implying +65% upside).
Moat
Net margin 81% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 29% — 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
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 HALO and INVA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.0 points in favor of HALO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthHALO 98.0 · INVA 71.2HALO +26.8
ValueHALO 65.9 · INVA 91.9INVA +26.0
QualityHALO 88.9 · INVA 67.4HALO +21.5
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 HALO or INVA the better stock?
HALO scores higher: HALO 83.1, INVA 76.1 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 HALO and INVA differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where HALO leads by 27 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 HALO and INVA 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.