vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ILLUMINA, INC. (ILMN) and NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC (NBIX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ILLUMINA, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $805.5M, roughly 1.4× NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC). NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC runs the higher net margin — 16.8% vs 19.1%, a 2.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (28.3% vs -1.6%). NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC produced more free cash flow last quarter ($386.0M vs $335.0M). Over the past eight quarters, NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES INC's revenue compounded faster (25.0% CAGR vs 0.8%).
Illumina, Inc. is an American biotechnology company, headquartered in San Diego, California. Incorporated on April 1, 1998, Illumina develops, manufactures, and markets integrated systems for the analysis of genetic variation and biological function. The company provides a line of products and services that serves the sequencing, genotyping and gene expression, and proteomics markets, and serves more than 155 countries.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company founded in 1992. It is headquartered in San Diego, California, and led by CEO Kyle Gano as of October 11, 2024. Neurocrine develops treatments for neurological and endocrine-related diseases and disorders. In 2017, the company's drug valbenazine (Ingrezza) was approved in the US to treat adults with tardive dyskinesia (TD).
ILMN vs NBIX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $805.5M |
| Net Profit | $186.0M | $153.7M |
| Gross Margin | 65.9% | 97.8% |
| Operating Margin | 15.8% | 26.2% |
| Net Margin | 16.8% | 19.1% |
| Revenue YoY | -1.6% | 28.3% |
| Net Profit YoY | 205.7% | 49.1% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.16 | $1.49 |
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 | — | $805.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $794.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $687.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $572.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | $627.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | $622.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $590.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | $515.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $153.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $209.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $107.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $7.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $186.0M | $103.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $705.0M | $129.8M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-2.0B | $65.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-126.0M | $43.4M |
| Q4 25 | — | 97.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 98.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 98.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 98.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.9% | 98.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 69.0% | 98.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 64.8% | 98.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 62.0% | 98.5% |
| Q4 25 | — | 26.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 30.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 21.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.8% | 22.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 68.6% | 29.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -147.2% | 24.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | -10.3% | 19.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 19.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 26.4% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 15.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 16.8% | 16.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 65.3% | 20.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | -178.8% | 11.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | -11.7% | 8.4% |
| Q4 25 | — | $1.49 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.04 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $1.06 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $0.08 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.16 | $1.00 | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.42 | $1.24 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-12.48 | $0.63 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.79 | $0.42 |
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 | $93.0M | $713.0M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $2.4B | $3.3B |
| Total Assets | $6.3B | $4.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $713.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $340.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $264.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $194.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $93.0M | $233.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $70.0M | $349.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $74.0M | $139.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $396.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $3.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.1B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.7B | $2.4B |
| Q4 25 | — | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $3.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.3B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.0B | $3.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.1B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.0B | $3.5B |
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 | $364.0M | $388.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $335.0M | $386.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 30.3% | 47.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.6% | 0.3% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.96× | 2.53× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $709.0M | $743.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $388.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $227.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $102.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $64.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $364.0M | $242.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $316.0M | $158.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $80.0M | $64.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $77.0M | $130.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $386.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $214.3M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $89.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $54.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $335.0M | $235.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $284.0M | $149.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $49.0M | $53.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $41.0M | $119.1M |
| Q4 25 | — | 47.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 27.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 13.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 9.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 30.3% | 37.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 26.3% | 24.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 4.4% | 9.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.8% | 23.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.6% | 1.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.0% | 1.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.8% | 2.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 3.3% | 2.2% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.53× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.09× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.95× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 8.20× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.96× | 2.35× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.45× | 1.22× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.99× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.00× |
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
ILMN
| Sequencing | $1.0B | 91% |
| Microarray | $101.0M | 9% |
| Investee | $7.0M | 1% |
NBIX
| INGREZZA Net Product Sales | $653.8M | 81% |
| CRENESSITY Net Product Sales | $135.4M | 17% |
| Other Income | $12.6M | 2% |
| Collaboration Revenue | $7.2M | 1% |
