Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Genmab A/S
How Genmab A/S stacks up
GMAB · against 557 other Healthcare companies listed in US-listed
Profitability
88/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #65 of 558 · scores higher than 88% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the profitability score38 peers with a profitability score of 80–89, including GMAB · Click a bar to see the companies
Why profitability scores 88?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its operating margin, return on assets and return on invested capital, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- a higher return on invested capital: stronger than 72% of peers. Return on invested capital: 11.6% vs peer median 4.7%
- a higher return on assets: stronger than 87% of peers. Return on assets: 8.8% vs peer median 1.7%
- a wider operating margin: stronger than 95% of peers. Operating margin: 33.6% vs peer median 7.1%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GMAB, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GMAB | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return on invested capitalHigher is better · 517 reported | 11.6% | -7.0% | 79% | 33% | |
| Operating marginHigher is better · 479 reported | 33.6% | -2.4% | 95% | 33% | |
| Return on assetsHigher is better · 582 reported | 8.8% | -7.8% | 84% | 33% | |
| Return on equityHigher is better · 531 reported | 14.0% | -19.7% | 81% | Context only | |
| Gross marginHigher is better · 601 reported | 93.0% | 43.9% | 93% | Context only |
Ranking by profitability score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GMAB| Rank | Company | Market cap | Profitability | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 622M USD | 99 | 97 | |
| 1 | 441M USD | 99 | 81 | |
| 1 | 18.0B USD | 99 | 76 | |
| 1 | 623M USD | 99 | 73 | |
| 1 | 4.2B USD | 99 | 70 | |
| 62 | 102.4B USD | 89 | 67 | |
| 62 | 34.2B USD |
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