Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
How Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. stacks up
ALNY · against 102 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Growth
97/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #1 of 103 · scores higher than 99% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score7 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including ALNY · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 97?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its revenue growth, 3-year revenue growth and earnings per share growth, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- Earnings per share turned from a loss to a profit. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 9.8%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 93% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 57.2% vs peer median 5.8%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 94% of peers. Revenue growth: 95.1% vs peer median 6.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ALNY, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ALNY | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 104 reported | 95.1% | 8.6% | 96% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 83 reported | Not reported | 15.7% | — | — | 33% |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 102 reported | 57.2% | 8.3% | 95% | 33% |
A metric that is not reported is left out of the score; the other weights are rescaled.
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ALNY| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.87T KRW (≈$10.7B) | 97 | 76 | |
| 1 | 21.4B USD | 97 | 67 | |
| 3 | 16.5B USD | 96 | 37 | |
| 3 | 14.5B USD | 96 | 30 | |
| 5 | 22.8B USD | 95 | 38 | |
| 6 | 40.2B USD | 92 | 73 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score