vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GENMAB A/S (GMAB) and MILLERKNOLL, INC. (MLKN). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
MILLERKNOLL, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($955.2M vs $925.0M, roughly 1.0× GENMAB A/S). GENMAB A/S runs the higher net margin — 36.3% vs 2.5%, a 33.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GENMAB A/S posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (18.7% vs -1.6%). GENMAB A/S produced more free cash flow last quarter ($327.0M vs $34.0M).
Genmab A/S is a Danish biotechnology company, founded in February 1999 by Florian Schönharting, at the time managing director of BankInvest Biomedical venture fund. The company is based in Copenhagen, Denmark – internationally, it operates through the subsidiaries Genmab B.V. in Utrecht, The Netherlands, Genmab U.S., Inc. in Princeton, New Jersey, US, Genmab K.K. in Tokyo, Japan, Genmab Germany GmbH in München, Germany and Genmab (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. in Suzhou, China. Genmab is listed on the Co...
MillerKnoll, Incorporated, doing business as Herman Miller, is an American company that produces office furniture, equipment, and home furnishings. Its best known designs include the Aeron chair, Noguchi table, Marshmallow sofa, Mirra chair, and Eames Lounge Chair. Herman Miller is also credited with the 1968 invention of the office cubicle under then–director of research Robert Propst.
GMAB vs MLKN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $925.0M | $955.2M |
| Net Profit | $336.0M | $24.2M |
| Gross Margin | 93.8% | 39.0% |
| Operating Margin | 38.9% | 5.1% |
| Net Margin | 36.3% | 2.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 18.7% | -1.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 65.5% | -29.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $5.42 | $0.35 |
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.
| Q4 25 | — | $955.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $955.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $925.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $779.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $604.5M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $458.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $24.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $20.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $336.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $203.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $193.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $274.2M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 39.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 38.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 93.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 96.4% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 99.5% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 5.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 5.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 38.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.3% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 35.2% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 39.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 26.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 32.0% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 59.8% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $0.35 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $0.29 | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.42 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.13 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $1.3B | $180.4M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.3B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.3B | $1.3B |
| Total Assets | $6.5B | $3.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.02× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $180.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $167.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $622.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $1.4B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $3.5B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.5B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.6B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $4.6B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $4.0B | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.02× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
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 | $349.0M | $64.6M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $327.0M | $34.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.4% | 3.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | 3.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.04× | 2.67× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q4 25 | — | $64.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $9.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $349.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $438.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $34.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-21.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $327.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $430.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -2.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.2% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.67× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.47× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.04× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.16× | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GMAB
| Darzalex | $638.0M | 69% |
| Kesimpta | $108.0M | 12% |
| Net Product Sales | $101.0M | 11% |
| Other | $28.0M | 3% |
| Tepezza | $20.0M | 2% |
| Reimbursement Revenue | $13.0M | 1% |
| Bio N Tech | $11.0M | 1% |
| Abb Vie | $5.0M | 1% |
| Milestone Revenue | $1.0M | 0% |
MLKN
| Workplace | $309.9M | 32% |
| Global Retail Segment | $275.8M | 29% |
| International Contract Segment | $170.9M | 18% |
| Performance Seating | $101.1M | 11% |
| Lifestyle | $52.9M | 6% |
| Other Products | $44.6M | 5% |
