vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. (ASMB) and GRAIL, Inc. (GRAL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
GRAIL, Inc. is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($43.6M vs $10.8M, roughly 4.0× ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC.). ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. runs the higher net margin — -85.2% vs -227.5%, a 142.2% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (57.6% vs 14.0%). ASSEMBLY BIOSCIENCES, INC. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($-15.2M vs $-63.9M).
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. is an American biotechnology company founded in 2004 that develops and manufactures systems for gene sequencing and some novel real time biological observation. PacBio has two principal sequencing platforms: single-molecule real-time sequencing (SMRT), based on the properties of zero-mode waveguides and sequencing by binding (SBB) chemistry, which uses native nucleotides and scarless incorporation for DNA binding and extension.
GRAIL, Inc. is an American biotechnology company based in Menlo Park, California founded in 2015 seeking to develop an early cancer screening test for people who do not have symptoms. As a startup it was a subsidiary of Illumina, which bought it outright in 2021.
ASMB vs GRAL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q3 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10.8M | $43.6M |
| Net Profit | $-9.2M | $-99.2M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | -100.9% | -285.4% |
| Net Margin | -85.2% | -227.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 57.6% | 14.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 4.3% | -2.2% |
| EPS (diluted) | $-0.72 | $-2.37 |
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 | — | $43.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.8M | $36.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $9.6M | $35.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.4M | $31.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.4M | $38.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8M | $28.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $8.5M | $32.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.8M | $26.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-99.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-9.2M | $-89.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-10.2M | $-114.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-8.8M | $-106.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-97.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $-9.6M | $-125.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-11.2M | $-1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-9.1M | $-218.9M |
| Q4 25 | — | -285.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | -100.9% | -346.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | -115.2% | -446.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | -105.5% | -482.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -358.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | -160.1% | -640.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | -143.0% | -5133.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -185.5% | -851.1% |
| Q4 25 | — | -227.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -85.2% | -245.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | -105.9% | -320.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | -93.6% | -333.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -253.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | -140.4% | -438.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | -130.7% | -4958.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -156.9% | -819.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | $-2.37 | ||
| Q3 25 | $-0.72 | $-2.46 | ||
| Q2 25 | $-1.33 | $-3.18 | ||
| Q1 25 | $-1.17 | $-3.10 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-1.49 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-1.51 | $-3.94 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-1.98 | $-51.06 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-1.66 | $-7.05 |
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 | $22.5M | $249.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $182.7M | $2.6B |
| Total Assets | $240.0M | $2.9B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $249.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.5M | $126.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.0M | $127.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $23.4M | $133.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $38.3M | $214.2M | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.5M | $853.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $19.2M | $958.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $18.7M | $199.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $182.7M | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $18.1M | $2.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $27.1M | $2.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | $33.4M | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $26.0M | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $34.7M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $32.6M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $240.0M | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $80.8M | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $99.0M | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $119.2M | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $100.3M | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $115.3M | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $119.9M | — |
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 | $-15.1M | $-63.8M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $-15.2M | $-63.9M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | -140.7% | -146.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | — | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $-299.9M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $-63.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.1M | $-63.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $-16.8M | $-77.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-23.4M | $-95.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-15.2M | $-104.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $-171.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $-207.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $-63.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $-15.2M | $-63.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $-77.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-95.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $-51.1M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $-105.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-17.1M | $-173.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $-18.4M | $-209.8M |
| Q4 25 | — | -146.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | -140.7% | -175.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | -217.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -298.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | -695.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | -368.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | -200.6% | -541.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | -317.7% | -785.3% |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.4% | 1.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.0% | 1.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.0% | 0.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.4% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.0% | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.2% | 4.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.2% | 9.5% |
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
ASMB
Segment breakdown not available.
GRAL
| Screening Revenue | $42.3M | 97% |
| Developmental Services Revenue | $1.3M | 3% |
