Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INVA scored 76.1, TGTX scored 48.3 — INVA leads.
Compare another set
INVA
Innoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
76.1
$21.21 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
27.8
INVA leads
TGTX
TG Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
48.3
$55.37 · $8.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINVA5.0x
Fastest growthTGTX+76.1%
Strongest balance sheetINVA0.27
Highest qualityINVA67 / 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
TGTX
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
58
71
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
92
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
27
INVA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INVA
TGTX
$189mC
FCF
$17mC-
+18.8%B+
Rev
+76.1%A
0.27B
D/E
1.25C
5.0xA
P/E
19.4xB+
3.12D
PEG
—
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
TGTX
54% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3323% above
~-11%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
+97%
1-yr DCF upside
-98%
+117%
5-yr DCF upside
-97%
+150%
10-yr DCF upside
-96%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
INVA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
TGTX
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
TGTXTG Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · $55.37 · beta 1.80
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $8.5b. 7% off the 52-week high of $59.30. Revenue growing +76% — in hypergrowth territory. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.71 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 55% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 73% — 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
Beta 1.80 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 10.6x 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 TGTX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 27.8 points in favor of INVA. The widest single difference is Value, where INVA leads by 64.8 points.
ValueINVA 91.9 · TGTX 27.1INVA +64.8
QualityINVA 67.4 · TGTX 58.1INVA +9.3
GrowthINVA 71.2 · TGTX 71.8level
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 INVA or TGTX the better stock?
INVA scores higher: INVA 76.1, TGTX 48.3 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 INVA and TGTX differ most?
The widest gap is value, where INVA leads by 65 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. INVA also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are INVA and TGTX 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.