vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of GENMAB A/S (GMAB) and StubHub Holdings, Inc. (STUB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GENMAB A/S is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($925.0M vs $468.1M, roughly 2.0× StubHub Holdings, Inc.). GENMAB A/S runs the higher net margin — 36.3% vs -276.6%, a 312.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, GENMAB A/S posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (18.7% vs 7.9%). GENMAB A/S produced more free cash flow last quarter ($327.0M vs $180.3M).
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...
StubHub Holdings operates a leading global online ticket marketplace for live entertainment events. It facilitates secure resale and direct purchase of tickets for concerts, sports matches, theater performances and other live experiences, serving consumers, event organizers and sellers across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.
GMAB vs STUB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q2 FY2025 vs Q3 FY2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $925.0M | $468.1M |
| Net Profit | $336.0M | $-1.3B |
| Gross Margin | 93.8% | — |
| Operating Margin | 38.9% | -292.3% |
| Net Margin | 36.3% | -276.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 18.7% | 7.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 65.5% | -3821.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $5.42 | $-4.27 |
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.
| Q3 25 | — | $468.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $925.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $433.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $779.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $604.5M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $458.5M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $336.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-33.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $203.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $193.6M | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $274.2M | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 93.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 96.4% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 99.5% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -292.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 38.9% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 30.3% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 35.2% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 39.4% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | -276.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 36.3% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -7.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 26.1% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 32.0% | — | ||
| Q2 22 | 59.8% | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $-4.27 | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.42 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-0.15 | ||
| 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 | $1.4B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $1.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $5.3B | $1.7B |
| Total Assets | $6.5B | $5.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.98× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $622.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $1.4B | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.3B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $815.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.4B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $4.1B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $3.5B | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $5.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $6.5B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.6B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $4.6B | — | ||
| Q2 22 | $4.0B | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.98× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| 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 | $181.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $327.0M | $180.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 35.4% | 38.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | 2.4% | 0.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | 1.04× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | — | $181.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $349.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $438.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | $180.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $327.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $430.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 38.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 35.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 55.2% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 22 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.04× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| 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% |
STUB
| Transaction Fees | $453.4M | 97% |
| Other | $14.7M | 3% |
