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 (+22.21% vs +0.90%), 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 | 31.5 | 24.3 |
| AI ranki | #2220 | #3190 |
| Latest closei | $27.79 | $12.31 |
| 1M returni | +8.26% | -3.45% |
| 3M returni | +2.66% | +12.22% |
| 6M returni | -14.07% | -11.12% |
| 1Y returni | +22.21% | +0.90% |
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 | $12.22K (+22.2%) started 2025-11-04 | $10.09K (+0.9%) started 2025-11-04 |
| 5Y ago | $3.1K (-69.0%) started 2021-11-05 | $908.62 (-90.9%) started 2021-11-05 |
| 10Y ago | $14.82K (+48.2%) started 2020-02-06 | $8.39K (-16.1%) started 2016-11-07 |
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 | N/A | N/A |
| 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 0.67), 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 | +22.21% | +0.90% |
| CAGRi | +22.22% | +0.90% | |
| Volatilityi | 71.56% | 79.45% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.57 | 0.35 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.92 | 0.52 | |
| Max drawdowni | 39.08% | 40.75% | |
| Current drawdowni | 26.71% | 31.00% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 19.14% | 23.58% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 22.39% | 25.96% | |
| Max daily dropi | 10.48% | 22.73% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 20.74% | 30.07% | |
| 5Y | Growthi | -68.96% | -90.91% |
| CAGRi | -20.87% | -38.12% | |
| Volatilityi | 75.32% | 78.22% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | -0.00 | -0.27 | |
| Sortino ratioi | -0.00 | -0.39 | |
| Max drawdowni | 85.32% | 95.46% | |
| Current drawdowni | 71.95% | 91.10% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 66.02% | 76.65% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 67.78% | 78.90% | |
| Max daily dropi | 19.32% | 42.23% | |
| Max wkly dropi | 31.25% | 52.63% | |
| 10Y | Growthi | +48.21% | -16.09% |
| CAGRi | +6.01% | -1.74% | |
| Volatilityi | 79.53% | 78.24% | |
| Sharpe ratioi | 0.41 | 0.31 | |
| Sortino ratioi | 0.63 | 0.46 | |
| Max drawdowni | 89.12% | 96.45% | |
| Current drawdowni | 79.20% | 93.04% | |
| Avg drawdowni | 60.99% | 57.17% | |
| Ulcer Indexi | 66.38% | 64.60% | |
| 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
Compare more than two at a time
This page is a fixed writeup on BEAM and NTLA. Our comparison engine is the interactive version: load up to five tickers, switch timeframes, and get the correlation, drawdown, and overlap analysis that a static page can't show.
Add three more names beside BEAM and NTLA, mixing stocks and ETFs in the same table — useful when the real question is which of a whole peer group to own.
AI score, forward P/E, analyst target upside, operating margin, and revenue growth are scored head-to-head, with a running tally of which ticker leads on how many metrics.
Volatility, Sharpe and Sortino ratios, maximum, current, and average drawdown, Ulcer Index, and worst single-day and single-week drops across every timeframe.
Pairwise daily-return correlation for every combination, so you can see whether two holdings actually diversify each other or just move together.
A scatter plot of forward P/E against return on equity, plus drawdown and 30-day rolling volatility charts, to separate what is cheap from what is merely beaten down.
For ETFs, a top-holdings comparison that exposes hidden overlap between funds. Every comparison exports to CSV for your own spreadsheet work.
Two comparisons a week are free without an account. A 14-day trial removes the limit and adds AI price forecasts, stock rankings, saved watchlists, and the intrinsic value calculator — no credit card required.
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.