NEO Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Beam Therapeutics has a net margin of -10.55% compared to NeoGenomics's net margin of -677.47%. NeoGenomics's return on equity of -8.38% beat Beam Therapeutics's return on equity of -16.62%.

NeoGenomics has a consensus price target of $21.08, signalling upside risk potential of 42.74%. On the other hand Beam Therapeutics has an analysts' consensus of $47.93 which suggests that it could grow by 81.62%. Given that Beam Therapeutics has higher upside potential than NeoGenomics, analysts believe Beam Therapeutics is more attractive than NeoGenomics.

NeoGenomics has a beta of 1.239, which suggesting that the stock is 23.864% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Beam Therapeutics has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

NeoGenomics has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Beam Therapeutics offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. NeoGenomics pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Beam Therapeutics pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

NeoGenomics quarterly revenues are $167.8M, which are larger than Beam Therapeutics quarterly revenues of $14.3M. NeoGenomics's net income of -$17.7M is higher than Beam Therapeutics's net income of -$96.7M. Notably, NeoGenomics's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Beam Therapeutics's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for NeoGenomics is 2.90x versus 6.18x for Beam Therapeutics. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Bruker has a net margin of -10.55% compared to NeoGenomics's net margin of 4.73%. NeoGenomics's return on equity of -8.38% beat Bruker's return on equity of 19.61%.

NeoGenomics has a consensus price target of $21.08, signalling upside risk potential of 42.74%. On the other hand Bruker has an analysts' consensus of $73.80 which suggests that it could grow by 21.42%. Given that NeoGenomics has higher upside potential than Bruker, analysts believe NeoGenomics is more attractive than Bruker.

NeoGenomics has a beta of 1.239, which suggesting that the stock is 23.864% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Bruker has a beta of 1.170, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 16.959%.

NeoGenomics has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Bruker offers a yield of 0.33% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.05 per share. NeoGenomics pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker pays out 6.88% of its earnings as a dividend. Bruker's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

NeoGenomics quarterly revenues are $167.8M, which are smaller than Bruker quarterly revenues of $864.4M. NeoGenomics's net income of -$17.7M is lower than Bruker's net income of $40.9M. Notably, NeoGenomics's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Bruker's PE ratio is 29.22x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for NeoGenomics is 2.90x versus 2.78x for Bruker. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Karyopharm Therapeutics has a net margin of -10.55% compared to NeoGenomics's net margin of -82.7%. NeoGenomics's return on equity of -8.38% beat Karyopharm Therapeutics's return on equity of --.

NeoGenomics has a consensus price target of $21.08, signalling upside risk potential of 42.74%. On the other hand Karyopharm Therapeutics has an analysts' consensus of $4.50 which suggests that it could grow by 526.22%. Given that Karyopharm Therapeutics has higher upside potential than NeoGenomics, analysts believe Karyopharm Therapeutics is more attractive than NeoGenomics.

NeoGenomics has a beta of 1.239, which suggesting that the stock is 23.864% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Karyopharm Therapeutics has a beta of 0.072, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 92.756%.

NeoGenomics has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Karyopharm Therapeutics offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. NeoGenomics pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Karyopharm Therapeutics pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

NeoGenomics quarterly revenues are $167.8M, which are larger than Karyopharm Therapeutics quarterly revenues of $38.8M. NeoGenomics's net income of -$17.7M is higher than Karyopharm Therapeutics's net income of -$32.1M. Notably, NeoGenomics's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Karyopharm Therapeutics's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for NeoGenomics is 2.90x versus 0.62x for Karyopharm Therapeutics. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Natera has a net margin of -10.55% compared to NeoGenomics's net margin of -7.18%. NeoGenomics's return on equity of -8.38% beat Natera's return on equity of -26.45%.

NeoGenomics has a consensus price target of $21.08, signalling upside risk potential of 42.74%. On the other hand Natera has an analysts' consensus of $171.93 which suggests that it could fall by -1.76%. Given that NeoGenomics has higher upside potential than Natera, analysts believe NeoGenomics is more attractive than Natera.

NeoGenomics has a beta of 1.239, which suggesting that the stock is 23.864% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Natera has a beta of 1.651, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 65.075%.

NeoGenomics has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Natera offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. NeoGenomics pays -- of its earnings as a dividend. Natera pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

NeoGenomics quarterly revenues are $167.8M, which are smaller than Natera quarterly revenues of $439.8M. NeoGenomics's net income of -$17.7M is higher than Natera's net income of -$31.6M. Notably, NeoGenomics's price-to-earnings ratio is -- while Natera's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for NeoGenomics is 2.90x versus 13.90x for Natera. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.