vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (ALNY) and TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD (TAK), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($1.1B vs $4.3M, roughly 257.3× TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD). ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. runs the higher net margin — 17.0% vs 3.4%, a 13.6% gap on every dollar of revenue.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics for genetically defined diseases. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 2016, Forbes included the company on its "100 Most Innovative Growth Companies" list.
The Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company. It is the third largest pharmaceutical company in Asia, behind Sinopharm and Shanghai Pharmaceuticals, and one of the top 20 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world by revenue. The company has over 49,578 employees worldwide and achieved US$19.299 billion in revenue during the 2018 fiscal year. The company is focused on oncology, rare diseases, neuroscience, gastroenterology, plasma-derived th...
ALNY vs TAK — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.1B | $4.3M |
| Net Profit | $186.4M | $144.2K |
| Gross Margin | 75.6% | 66.5% |
| Operating Margin | 12.0% | 5.0% |
| Net Margin | 17.0% | 3.4% |
| Revenue YoY | 84.9% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | 322.6% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.44 | — |
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 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $773.7M | $4.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $594.2M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $593.2M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $500.9M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $659.8M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $494.3M | $4.0M |
| Q4 25 | $186.4M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $251.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-66.3M | $144.2K | ||
| Q1 25 | $-57.5M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-83.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-111.6M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-16.9M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-65.9M | $317.0K |
| Q4 25 | 75.6% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 84.2% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 81.6% | 66.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 88.2% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 82.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 83.6% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 89.8% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 89.0% | 69.1% |
| Q4 25 | 12.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 29.5% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -2.1% | 5.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.0% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -17.7% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -15.4% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.4% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -8.8% | 12.2% |
| Q4 25 | 17.0% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | -8.6% | 3.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | -9.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -14.1% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -22.3% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | -2.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -13.3% | 7.9% |
| Q4 25 | $1.44 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.84 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $-0.51 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-0.44 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-0.66 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.87 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-0.13 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-0.52 | — |
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 | $1.7B | $2.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $789.2M | $45.1B |
| Total Assets | $5.0B | $92.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.7B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.5B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $2.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $966.4M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.1B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $968.5M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $681.9M | $3.0B |
| Q4 25 | $789.2M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $233.9M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $250.6M | $45.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $115.4M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $67.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $32.4M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $-3.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-219.3M | $47.3B |
| Q4 25 | $5.0B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.9B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.6B | $92.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.0B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.8B | $98.2B |
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 | $163.6M | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $140.3M | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 12.8% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.1% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.88× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $465.4M | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $163.6M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $325.1M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $153.7M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-118.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-94.7M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $43.7M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $124.2M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-81.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | $140.3M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $313.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $139.4M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $-127.3M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $-103.8M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $39.5M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $116.1M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $-94.5M | — |
| Q4 25 | 12.8% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 25.1% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | -21.4% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | -17.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.9% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.6% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | -19.1% | — |
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.0% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.8% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.2% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.6% | — |
| Q4 25 | 0.88× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.29× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| 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
ALNY
| TTR | $858.3M | 78% |
| Rare | $136.4M | 12% |
| GIVLAARI | $56.3M | 5% |
| Collaborative Arrangement | $40.9M | 4% |
| ONPATTRO | $12.0M | 1% |
TAK
Segment breakdown not available.
