Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. HRMY scored 88.5, ADMA scored 86.3 — HRMY leads.
Compare another set
HRMY
Harmony Biosciences Holdings, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
88.5
$40.28 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.2
HRMY 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
CheapestHRMY13.0x
Fastest growthHRMY+24.3%
Strongest balance sheetHRMY0.16
Highest qualityADMA87 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueHRMY-71%
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)
HRMY
stronger →← stronger
ADMA
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
92
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
HRMY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
HRMY
ADMA
$355mC
FCF
$116mC
+24.3%A-
Rev
+19.6%B+
0.16B+
D/E
0.50B
13.0xA
P/E
14.8xA-
0.38A
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
HRMY
ADMA
71% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
28% below
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
+168%
1-yr DCF upside
+13%
+249%
5-yr DCF upside
+38%
+413%
10-yr DCF upside
+88%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
HRMY
Why this score
Durable high returns
ADMA
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
Earnings outpace cash
The companies
HRMYHarmony Biosciences Holdings, Inc.
Biotechnology · $40.28 · beta 1.01
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $2.3b. 7% off the 52-week high of $43.49. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.38 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $47.64 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 196% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
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
The model favors HRMY (88.2) over ADMA (81.7) primarily due to its superior Growth pillar (91 vs. 77), reflected in HRMY's +24.3% revenue growth (A-). However, a contrarian might prefer ADMA given its significantly lower implied growth of 3% per year, suggesting less optimism is priced into its future performance compared to HRMY's -18%.
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 HRMY and ADMA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.2 points in favor of HRMY. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueHRMY 92.2 · ADMA 80.8HRMY +11.4
QualityHRMY 79.5 · ADMA 87.1ADMA +7.6
GrowthHRMY 94.5 · ADMA 91.4HRMY +3.1
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 HRMY or ADMA the better stock?
HRMY scores higher: HRMY 88.5, ADMA 86.3 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 HRMY and ADMA differ most?
The widest gap is value, where HRMY leads by 11 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 HRMY and ADMA 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.