vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of HARVARD BIOSCIENCE INC (HBIO) and Legend Biotech Corp (LEGN), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Legend Biotech Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($272.3M vs $23.7M, roughly 11.5× HARVARD BIOSCIENCE INC). HARVARD BIOSCIENCE INC runs the higher net margin — -12.0% vs -14.6%, a 2.6% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Legend Biotech Corp posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (70.0% vs -3.3%). Over the past eight quarters, Legend Biotech Corp's revenue compounded faster (92.7% CAGR vs -1.6%).
Harvard Bioscience is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of life sciences equipment to support research and drug discovery. It is traded on NASDAQ under the stock symbol HBIO.
GenScript Biotech, fully known as GenScript Biotech Corporation, usually referred to as simply GenScript, is a China–based biotech company. It was co-founded in 2002 in New Jersey by Fangliang Zhang, Ye Wang, and Luquan Wang. The company mainly provides life science research application instruments and services. It was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2015. The current rotating CEO of the firm is Shao Weihui, who also served as the chief operating officer and Chinese Communist Party ...
HBIO vs LEGN — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q3 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $23.7M | $272.3M |
| Net Profit | $-2.8M | $-39.7M |
| Gross Margin | 59.7% | 58.4% |
| Operating Margin | 7.2% | -16.0% |
| Net Margin | -12.0% | -14.6% |
| Revenue YoY | -3.3% | 70.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | -15916.7% | 68.3% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.06 | $-0.11 |
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 | $23.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $20.6M | $272.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | $20.4M | $255.1M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.8M | $195.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $24.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $22.0M | $160.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.1M | $186.5M | ||
| Q1 24 | $24.5M | $94.0M |
| Q4 25 | $-2.8M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-1.2M | $-39.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-2.3M | $-125.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-50.3M | $-100.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $18.0K | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-4.8M | $-125.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.9M | $-18.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.7M | $-59.8M |
| Q4 25 | 59.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 58.4% | 58.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | 56.4% | 62.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 56.0% | 64.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 57.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 58.1% | 67.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 57.2% | 75.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 60.3% | 47.8% |
| Q4 25 | 7.2% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.0% | -16.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | -4.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -228.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -8.5% | -43.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -9.0% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -9.3% | — |
| Q4 25 | -12.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -6.0% | -14.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | -11.2% | -49.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | -231.2% | -51.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -21.9% | -78.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | -12.7% | -9.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -19.1% | -63.6% |
| Q4 25 | $-0.06 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.03 | $-0.11 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.05 | $-0.34 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.14 | $-0.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.01 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.11 | $-0.34 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.07 | $-0.05 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.11 | $-0.16 |
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 | $8.6M | $278.9M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $35.9M | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $13.7M | $1.0B |
| Total Assets | $80.1M | $1.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 2.61× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $8.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.8M | $278.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.4M | $266.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.5M | $441.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.6M | $459.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.0M | $201.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.3M | $897.6M |
| Q4 25 | $35.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $34.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $34.9M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $36.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $37.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $34.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $35.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $35.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $13.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $14.1M | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $15.7M | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.8M | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $63.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $65.3M | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $67.2M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $68.8M | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $80.1M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $78.0M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.1M | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $79.8M | $1.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | $126.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $131.2M | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $128.9M | $1.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $133.2M | $1.8B |
| Q4 25 | 2.61× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.41× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.22× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.45× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.58× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.53× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.52× | — |
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 | $-96.0K | $28.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-545.0K | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -2.3% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 1.9% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $5.5M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-96.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.1M | $28.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.8M | $-13.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.0M | $-103.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-842.0K | $-75.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-846.0K | $-1.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.4M | $15.5M |
| Q4 25 | $-545.0K | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $877.0K | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $2.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $758.0K | — |
| Q4 25 | -2.3% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 4.3% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 13.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 11.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -7.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -7.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 1.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.0% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.5% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 95.83× | — | ||
| 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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
HBIO
| Instruments Equipment Software And Accessories | $21.6M | 91% |
| Service Maintenance And Warranty Contracts | $2.1M | 9% |
LEGN
| Goods Or Services Transferred At Point In Time | $261.8M | 96% |
| Goods Or Services Transferred Over Time | $10.5M | 4% |
