vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Arbutus Biopharma Corp (ABUS) and ASTRAZENECA PLC (AZN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ASTRAZENECA PLC is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($14.5B vs $1.1M, roughly 13755.5× Arbutus Biopharma Corp). On growth, ASTRAZENECA PLC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (11.7% vs -33.2%).
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation is a publicly traded Canadian biopharmaceutical company with an expertise in liposomal drug delivery and RNA interference, and is developing drugs for hepatitis B infection.
AstraZeneca plc (AZ) is a Swedish-British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company with its headquarters at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus in Cambridge, UK. It has a portfolio of products for major diseases in areas including oncology, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infection, neuroscience, respiratory, and inflammation.
ABUS vs AZN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1M | $14.5B |
| Net Profit | — | $2.4B |
| Gross Margin | — | 82.9% |
| Operating Margin | -503.3% | 24.3% |
| Net Margin | — | 16.9% |
| Revenue YoY | -33.2% | 11.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | — | 27.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.01 | $1.57 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $1.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $529.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.7M | $14.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.7M | $12.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-7.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.5M | $2.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $-24.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-19.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-19.8M | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-17.9M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 82.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 83.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -503.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1636.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.9% | 24.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1456.9% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -885.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1601.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1250.5% | 21.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1263.9% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -1463.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 23.5% | 16.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1390.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1472.5% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1146.9% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -1166.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.01 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.04 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.01 | $1.57 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.13 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.07 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.10 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.11 | $1.24 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.10 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $91.5M | $7.1B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $0 | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $76.6M | $44.8B |
| Total Assets | $94.6M | $112.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.00× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $91.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $37.4M | $7.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $37.1M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $122.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $31.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $62.8M | $6.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $43.1M | — |
| Q4 25 | $0 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $0 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $0 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $0 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $0 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $0 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $0 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $0 | — |
| Q4 25 | $76.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $77.4M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $83.0M | $44.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $79.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $97.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $106.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $122.5M | $39.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $114.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $94.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $97.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $103.3M | $112.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $117.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $131.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $140.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $160.0M | $104.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $150.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.00× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.00× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $-4.7M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.0% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-4.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-5.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-15.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-13.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-10.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-20.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-14.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-19.3M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-10.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-14.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-19.4M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -660.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -840.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -1265.7% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 6.2% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -6.24× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
