vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (APLS) and HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP (HWC). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($295.0M vs $199.9M, roughly 1.5× Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). HANCOCK WHITNEY CORP runs the higher net margin — 16.1% vs -29.5%, a 45.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-5.9% vs -19.7%). Over the past eight quarters, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (7.7% CAGR vs -9.4%).
Apellis Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing targeted therapies that modulate the complement system to address serious unmet medical needs. Its core products target ophthalmic conditions like geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration, as well as rare hematological and autoimmune disorders, with primary operations in the United States and European markets.
Hancock Whitney Corp. is an American bank holding company headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi. It operates 237 branches in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. The bank is the official bank of the New Orleans Saints and issues the official debit card. The bank is also the official bank of LSU Athletics and the Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns, being the exclusive provider of credit cards for the LSU Tigers, as well as debit cards for both athletic brands.
APLS vs HWC — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $199.9M | $295.0M |
| Net Profit | $-59.0M | $47.4M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -25.6% | — |
| Net Margin | -29.5% | 16.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -5.9% | -19.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | -62.2% | -60.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.40 | $0.57 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history. Quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q1 26 | — | $295.0M | ||
| Q4 25 | $199.9M | $389.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $458.6M | $385.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $178.5M | $375.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $166.8M | $364.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $212.5M | $364.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $196.8M | $367.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $199.7M | $359.6M |
| Q1 26 | — | $47.4M | ||
| Q4 25 | $-59.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $215.7M | $127.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-42.2M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-92.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-36.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-57.4M | $115.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-37.7M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -25.6% | 40.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 48.7% | 41.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -18.6% | 38.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -50.0% | 40.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | -12.3% | 41.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | -24.0% | 39.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -14.7% | 40.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 16.1% | ||
| Q4 25 | -29.5% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 47.0% | 33.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -23.6% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -55.3% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -17.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -29.2% | 31.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -18.9% | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.57 | ||
| Q4 25 | $-0.40 | $1.48 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.67 | $1.49 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.33 | $1.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.74 | $1.38 | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.30 | $1.40 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.46 | $1.33 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.30 | $1.31 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $466.2M | $223.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.6B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $370.1M | — |
| Total Assets | $1.1B | $35.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $223.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $466.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $479.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $370.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $358.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $411.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $396.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $360.1M | — |
| Q1 26 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $199.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $210.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $210.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $210.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $210.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $236.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $236.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $370.1M | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $401.2M | $4.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $156.3M | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $164.2M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $228.5M | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $237.1M | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $264.3M | $3.9B |
| Q1 26 | — | $35.5B | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.1B | $35.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1B | $35.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $821.4M | $35.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $807.3M | $34.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $885.1M | $35.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $901.9M | $35.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $904.5M | $35.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.05× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.06× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.06× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Cash flow is harder to manipulate than net income.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $-14.2M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-14.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -7.1% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 0.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $45.0M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-14.2M | $541.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $108.5M | $158.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4M | $125.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-53.4M | $104.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.4M | $625.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.1M | $162.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.3M | $105.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $-14.3M | $523.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $108.3M | $155.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.4M | $122.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-53.4M | $100.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3M | $615.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $158.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-8.4M | $103.7M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | -7.1% | 134.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 23.6% | 40.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.5% | 32.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | -32.0% | 27.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 9.1% | 168.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 43.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | -4.2% | 28.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 0.1% | 4.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.0% | 1.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.0% | 2.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.0% | 0.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.50× | 1.25× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.41× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
APLS
| Syfovre | $155.2M | 78% |
| Empaveli Pegcetacoplan | $35.1M | 18% |
| Licensing And Other Revenue | $9.6M | 5% |
HWC
Segment breakdown not available.
