vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GENMAB A/S (GMAB) and Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GENMAB A/S is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($925.0M vs $804.2M, roughly 1.2× Monolithic Power Systems). GENMAB A/S runs the higher net margin — 36.3% vs 24.0%, a 12.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Monolithic Power Systems posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (26.1% vs 18.7%).
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...
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. is an American, publicly traded company headquartered in Kirkland, Washington. It operates in more than 15 locations worldwide.
GMAB vs MPWR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q1 FY2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $925.0M | $804.2M |
| Net Profit | $336.0M | $193.2M |
| Gross Margin | 93.8% | 55.3% |
| Operating Margin | 38.9% | 30.0% |
| Net Margin | 36.3% | 24.0% |
| Revenue YoY | 18.7% | 26.1% |
| Net Profit YoY | 65.5% | 43.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $5.42 | $3.92 |
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 | — | $804.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $751.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $737.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $925.0M | $664.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $637.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $621.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $620.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $779.0M | $507.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | $193.2M | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $171.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $179.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $336.0M | $135.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $135.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $144.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $203.0M | $100.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | 55.3% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 55.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 55.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 93.8% | 55.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 55.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 55.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 55.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 96.4% | 55.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | 30.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 26.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 26.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 38.9% | 24.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 26.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 26.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 26.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.3% | 23.0% |
| Q1 26 | — | 24.0% | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 22.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 24.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.3% | 20.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 21.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 201.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 26.1% | 19.8% |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.92 | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.74 | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.42 | $2.81 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.81 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $25.71 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.95 | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.13 | $2.05 |
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 | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.3B | $3.7B |
| Total Assets | $6.5B | $4.4B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $862.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $622.0M | $1.3B |
| Q1 26 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3B | $3.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | $2.2B |
| Q1 26 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $4.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.5B | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.6B | $2.6B |
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 | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $327.0M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.04× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $104.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $239.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $349.0M | $237.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $256.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $167.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $231.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $438.0M | $141.0M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | $63.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $196.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $327.0M | $189.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $216.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $102.9M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $197.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $430.0M | $109.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 8.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 26.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | 28.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 33.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 16.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 31.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.2% | 21.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 5.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 5.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | 7.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 6.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 10.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 5.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.0% | 6.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | — | 0.61× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.04× | 1.76× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.90× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.13× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.60× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.16× | 1.40× |
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% |
MPWR
Segment breakdown not available.
