vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of AbCellera Biologics Inc. (ABCL) and GENMAB A/S (GMAB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GENMAB A/S is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($925.0M vs $44.9M, roughly 20.6× AbCellera Biologics Inc.). GENMAB A/S runs the higher net margin — -19.9% vs 36.3%, a 56.3% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, AbCellera Biologics Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (788.4% vs 18.7%).
AbCellera Biologics Inc. is a Vancouver, British Columbia-based biotechnology company that discovers and develops antibody therapeutics. The company is best known for its leading role in the Pandemic Prevention Platform, a project of DARPA's Biological Technologies Office. AbCellera utilizes a proprietary technology platform, which they claim can develop "medical countermeasures within 60 days." Its platform for single-cell screening was initially developed at the University of British Columbia.
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...
ABCL vs GMAB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q2 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $44.9M | $925.0M |
| Net Profit | $-8.9M | $336.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | 93.8% |
| Operating Margin | -63.7% | 38.9% |
| Net Margin | -19.9% | 36.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 788.4% | 18.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 73.9% | 65.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.03 | $5.42 |
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 | $44.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $9.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $17.1M | $925.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.3M | $779.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $10.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-8.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-57.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-34.7M | $336.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-45.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-34.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-36.9M | $203.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-40.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 93.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 96.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | -63.7% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -851.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -290.2% | 38.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1479.6% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -1441.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -1439.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -1276.2% | 30.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | -551.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | -19.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -637.8% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -203.3% | 36.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | -1077.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -677.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -785.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -504.3% | 26.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | -408.0% | — |
| Q4 25 | $-0.03 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.19 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.12 | $5.42 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.15 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.11 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.17 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.13 | $3.13 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.14 | — |
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 | $128.5M | $1.3B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $966.9M | $5.3B |
| Total Assets | $1.4B | $6.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $128.5M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $83.2M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $92.4M | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $159.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $156.3M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $126.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $148.3M | $622.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $123.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | $966.9M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $964.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $5.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.1B | — |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $6.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.5B | — |
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 | $-34.7M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-44.6M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -99.4% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 21.9% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $-174.1M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $-34.7M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-52.6M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-32.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-11.6M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-8.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-28.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-30.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-41.7M | — |
| Q4 25 | $-44.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $-61.5M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-45.8M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-22.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-23.6M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-47.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-50.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-65.8M | — |
| Q4 25 | -99.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | -687.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -267.9% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -524.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -468.0% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -728.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -683.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -661.5% | — |
| Q4 25 | 21.9% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 99.7% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 78.2% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 251.1% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 309.6% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 284.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 274.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 242.5% | — |
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
ABCL
Segment breakdown not available.
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% |
