BEAM vs NTLA Stock Comparison: AI Score, Valuation, Performance and Upside
Beam Therapeutics and Intellia Therapeutics are both clinical-stage gene editing companies, but Beam pursues a differentiated base editing technology that makes precise single-letter DNA changes, while Intellia focuses on traditional CRISPR nuclease-based in vivo gene editing approaches.
Beam offers exposure to a differentiated base editing technology platform with precision editing advantages, while Intellia offers exposure to a CRISPR-based in vivo editing approach backed by pharmaceutical partnerships. Consider whether you prefer Beam's base editing precision technology or Intellia's in vivo CRISPR editing strategy.
BEAM holds the edge across 3 of 5 key metrics in this comparison. BEAM has delivered stronger 1-year price return (-0.60% vs -24.64%), though NTLA has the better forward P/E setup (-4.90x vs -5.06x for BEAM). NTLA leads on both revenue growth (-46.20%) and operating margin (-1472.26%), suggesting a stronger fundamental setup on both dimensions. Analyst consensus implies meaningfully more upside for BEAM (+117.40%) than for NTLA (+87.63%).
Human Wall Street analysts' price targets, typically implying a ~12-month view — a separate signal from this site's own AI Prediction Signal further down the page, which is a 5-/30-day machine-learning forecast based on price history alone.
- Believe base editing technology offers precision advantages over traditional CRISPR nuclease-based cutting methods
- Value pipeline diversification across multiple genetic disease programs
- See strategic partnerships and licensing agreements as validation of the technology platform
- Are comfortable with the substantial clinical and regulatory execution risk inherent in gene editing drug development
- Believe in vivo gene editing approaches offer administration advantages over ex vivo editing methods
- Value strategic partnerships with larger pharmaceutical companies as validation and funding support
- See encouraging early clinical data in key indications as a positive sign for future pipeline success
- Are comfortable with the substantial clinical and regulatory execution risk inherent in gene editing drug development
| Metric | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| AI scorei | 31.4 | 24.5 |
| AI ranki | #2209 | #3227 |
| Latest closei | $24.95 | $12.14 |
| 1M returni | -14.17% | -8.58% |
| 6M returni | +1.30% | -5.45% |
| 1Y returni | -0.60% | -24.64% |
How much would $10,000 be worth today if invested at the start of each period, with all dividends reinvested?
| Period | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| 1Y ago | $9.94K (-0.6%) started 2025-09-18 | $7.54K (-24.6%) started 2025-09-18 |
| 5Y ago | $2.62K (-73.8%) started 2021-09-20 | $818.28 (-91.8%) started 2021-09-20 |
| 10Y ago | $13.31K (+33.1%) started 2020-02-06 | $6.37K (-36.3%) started 2016-09-19 |
Hypothetical — past performance does not guarantee future results.
| Metric | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| Market capi | $2.48B | $1.79B |
| Trailing P/Ei | N/A | N/A |
| Forward P/Ei | -5.06 | -4.90 |
| Price/Salesi | N/A | N/A |
| EV/Revenuei | 9.56 | 23.75 |
| Analyst targeti | $52.15 | $23.94 |
| Target upsidei | +117.40% | +87.63% |
| Metric | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthi | -94.20% | -46.20% |
| Earnings growthi | N/A | N/A |
| EPS growthi | N/A | N/A |
| FCF margini | -154.99% | -419.83% |
| Operating margini | -25827.14% | -1472.26% |
| Profit margini | -55.45% | 0.00% |
| ROIC proxyi | -8.18% | -55.44% |
| Return on equityi | -8.18% | -55.44% |
| Dividend yieldi | N/A | N/A |
| Payout ratioi | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Dividend growth streaki | N/A | N/A |
| Betai | 2.23 | 1.79 |
| Debt/equityi | 23.17 | 10.09 |
| Current ratioi | 14.57 | 6.65 |
| Quick ratioi | 14.25 | 5.61 |
Over the past year, BEAM and NTLA have moved moderately in the same direction (correlation of 0.63), based on daily returns.
Lower drawdown and smaller single-period drops generally indicate a smoother ride, though they do not guarantee lower future risk.
| Period | Metric | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Y | Growthi | -0.60% | -24.64% |
| CAGRi | -0.60% | -24.66% | |
| Volatilityi | 73.36% | 94.51% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.29 | 0.16 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.46 | 0.22 | |
| Max drawdowni | 39.08% | 71.27% | |
| Current drawdowni | 34.20% | 56.61% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 17.93% | 49.91% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 20.57% | 52.95% | |
| Max daily dropi | 10.48% | 42.23% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 20.74% | 52.63% | |
| 5Y | Growthi | -73.82% | -91.82% |
| CAGRi | -23.54% | -39.42% | |
| Volatilityi | 74.95% | 77.97% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | -0.05 | -0.30 | |
| Sortino ratioi | -0.07 | -0.43 | |
| Max drawdowni | 85.32% | 95.96% | |
| Current drawdowni | 74.81% | 92.18% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 64.19% | 77.05% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 66.68% | 79.53% | |
| Max daily dropi | 19.32% | 42.23% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 31.25% | 52.63% | |
| 10Y | Growthi | +33.07% | -36.31% |
| CAGRi | +4.41% | -4.41% | |
| Volatilityi | 79.80% | 78.49% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.39 | 0.28 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.60 | 0.41 | |
| Max drawdowni | 89.12% | 96.45% | |
| Current drawdowni | 81.32% | 93.13% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 60.59% | 56.64% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 66.06% | 63.89% | |
| Max daily dropi | 23.42% | 42.23% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 41.11% | 52.63% |
| Category | BEAM | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| Company | Beam Therapeutics Inc. | Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. |
| Sector | Healthcare | Healthcare |
| Industry | Biotechnology | Biotechnology |
| Core business | A clinical-stage biotechnology company developing precision genetic medicines using base editing technology, a form of gene editing designed to make single-letter DNA changes without cutting the DNA strand. | A clinical-stage biotechnology company developing CRISPR-based gene editing therapies, with a focus on in vivo editing approaches that aim to edit genes directly inside the patient's body for genetic diseases. |
| Investor focus | Base editing clinical trial progress across pipeline programs, cash runway relative to development spending, and partnership or licensing agreement developments. | In vivo gene editing clinical trial progress, partnership and collaboration revenue, and cash runway relative to the pace of pipeline development spending. |
- Base editing technology platform offers a differentiated precision gene editing approach compared to traditional CRISPR nuclease-based cutting methods
- Pipeline diversification across multiple genetic disease programs offers several potential future clinical and regulatory catalysts
- Strategic partnerships and licensing agreements provide funding support and validation of the base editing technology platform
- Focus on in vivo gene editing approaches could offer simpler treatment administration compared to ex vivo editing methods
- Strategic partnerships with larger pharmaceutical companies provide funding support and validation of the technology platform
- Pipeline progress in genetic disease programs has generated encouraging early clinical data in key indications
- Clinical-stage status means the company has no significant approved product revenue, relying on cash reserves to fund operations
- Base editing technology, while differentiated, still carries substantial clinical and regulatory execution risk across pipeline programs
- Competitive gene editing landscape includes multiple well-funded companies pursuing similar and alternative therapeutic approaches
- Clinical-stage status means the company has no significant approved product revenue, relying on cash reserves and partnerships to fund operations
- In vivo gene editing technology, while differentiated, still carries substantial clinical and regulatory execution risk
- Competitive gene editing landscape includes multiple well-funded companies pursuing similar and alternative therapeutic approaches
Want deeper AI forecasts?
This comparison page is public and free forever. Subscribers can unlock saved watchlists, full AI rankings, detailed forecasts, and interactive analysis tools.