vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Legend Biotech Corp (LEGN) and TASEKO MINES LTD (TGB). Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Legend Biotech Corp is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($272.3M vs $137.7M, roughly 2.0× TASEKO MINES LTD).
Legend Biotech CorpLEGNEarnings & Financial Report
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 ...
Taseko Mines Limited is a mid-tier copper producer located in British Columbia, Canada. It operates Gibraltar Mine, the second largest open-pit copper mine in Canada, and is in the planning stages for several other mines including the Prosperity Mine, Harmony, and Aley. All production is sold at non-hedged market based prices. The market capitalization is currently roughly 740 million dollars.
LEGN vs TGB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 FY2025 vs Q2 FY2024
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $272.3M | $137.7M |
| Net Profit | $-39.7M | — |
| Gross Margin | 58.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | -16.0% | — |
| Net Margin | -14.6% | — |
| Revenue YoY | 70.0% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 68.3% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.11 | — |
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 | $272.3M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $255.1M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $195.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $160.2M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $186.5M | $137.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $94.0M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $96.0M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $73.3M | — |
| Q3 25 | $-39.7M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-125.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-100.9M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-125.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-18.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-59.8M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-62.2M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-199.1M | — |
| Q3 25 | 58.4% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 62.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 64.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 67.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 75.7% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 47.8% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | 54.7% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | 55.4% | — |
| Q3 25 | -16.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -43.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 23 | — | — | ||
| Q2 23 | — | — |
| Q3 25 | -14.6% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -49.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -51.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -78.2% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -9.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -63.6% | — | ||
| Q3 23 | -64.8% | — | ||
| Q2 23 | -271.6% | — |
| Q3 25 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.34 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.27 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.34 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.05 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.16 | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-0.16 | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-0.57 | — |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest quarter.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $278.9M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $1.0B | — |
| Total Assets | $1.7B | — |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $278.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $266.6M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $441.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $459.3M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $201.3M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $897.6M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $963.5M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.2B | — |
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.4B | — |
| Q3 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $1.8B | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $1.9B | — |
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 | $28.8M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period.
| Q3 25 | $28.8M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-13.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-103.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-75.8M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.7M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $15.5M | — | ||
| Q3 23 | $-60.8M | — | ||
| Q2 23 | $-97.6M | — |
Financial Flow Comparison
Revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
LEGN
| Goods Or Services Transferred At Point In Time | $261.8M | 96% |
| Goods Or Services Transferred Over Time | $10.5M | 4% |
TGB
Segment breakdown not available.
