Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INVA scored 76.1, ARGX scored 77.2 — ARGX leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. INVA'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.
INVA
Innoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
76.1
$21.21 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.1
ARGX leads
ARGX
argenx SE
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
77.2
$825.03 · $51.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINVA5.0x
Fastest growthARGX+89.9%
Strongest balance sheetARGX0.01
Highest qualityARGX72 / 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)
INVA
stronger →← stronger
ARGX
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
98
92
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
ARGX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INVA
ARGX
$189mC
FCF
$679mC+
+18.8%B+
Rev
+89.9%A
0.27B
D/E
0.01A
5.0xA
P/E
31.4xB
3.12D
PEG
1.00B+
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
INVA
ARGX
54% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
229% above
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~47%/yr
+97%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
+117%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
+150%
10-yr DCF upside
-55%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
INVA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
ARGX
The companies
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.
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.
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 INVA and ARGX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.1 points in favor of ARGX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthINVA 71.2 · ARGX 98.0ARGX +26.8
ValueINVA 91.9 · ARGX 65.1INVA +26.8
QualityINVA 67.4 · ARGX 72.1ARGX +4.7
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 ARGX or INVA the better stock?
ARGX scores higher: ARGX 77.2, 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 ARGX and INVA differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ARGX 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 ARGX 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.