ABBV vs. MRNA: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at ABBV and MRNA, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
ABBV dominates in value with a market cap of 321.13 billion USD, eclipsing MRNA’s 9.92 billion USD by roughly 32.37×.
MRNA carries a higher beta at 2.00, indicating it’s more sensitive to market moves, while ABBV remains steadier at 0.55.
| Symbol | ABBV | MRNA |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | AbbVie Inc. | Moderna, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Healthcare | Healthcare |
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - General | Biotechnology |
| CEO | Mr. Robert A. Michael CPA | Mr. Stephane Bancel |
| Price | 181.8 USD | 25.65 USD |
| Market Cap | 321.13 billion USD | 9.92 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.55 | 2.00 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NASDAQ |
| IPO Date | January 2, 2013 | December 7, 2018 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of ABBV and MRNA over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of ABBV and MRNA based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- MRNA shows a negative P/E of -2.95, highlighting a year of losses, whereas ABBV at 76.62 trades on solid profitability.
- MRNA reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -2.47, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while ABBV at 20.87 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | ABBV | MRNA |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 76.62 | -2.95 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 7.16 | 0.11 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 5.60 | 3.14 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 226.35 | 0.98 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 20.87 | -2.47 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 23.58 | -2.83 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 6.73 | 2.86 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 25.08 | -2.25 |
Dividend Comparison
ABBV delivers a 3.51% dividend yield, blending income with growth, whereas MRNA appears to retain its profits, possibly to fund operations, R&D, or other growth initiatives.
| Symbol | ABBV | MRNA |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 3.51% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of ABBV and MRNA, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- ABBV’s current ratio of 0.76 signals a possible liquidity squeeze, while MRNA at 4.22 comfortably covers its short-term obligations.
- ABBV’s quick ratio of 0.64 suggests it may struggle to cover immediate liabilities without selling inventory or raising cash, whereas MRNA at 4.14 maintains a comfortable buffer of liquid assets.
- ABBV is heavily leveraged (debt-to-equity ratio 49.22), which can boost returns but raises risk if borrowing costs climb, while MRNA at 0.07 keeps leverage at a more moderate level.
- ABBV meets its interest obligations (ratio 6.14). In stark contrast, MRNA’s negative ratio (-207.17) means its operating earnings (EBIT) don't cover basic operations, let alone interest, signaling serious financial trouble.
| Symbol | ABBV | MRNA |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.76 | 4.22 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.64 | 4.14 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 49.22 | 0.07 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.51 | 0.06 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 6.14 | -207.17 |