Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Zevra Therapeutics, Inc.
How Zevra Therapeutics, Inc. stacks up
ZVRA · against 427 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Growth
99/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #2 of 428 · scores higher than 99% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score34 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including ZVRA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 99?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth, 3-year revenue growth and revenue growth, which are stronger than most Healthcare peers.
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 95% of peers. Revenue growth: 119.4% vs peer median 6.1%
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 96% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 101.9% vs peer median 5.8%
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 100% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 1983.0% vs peer median 9.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ZVRA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ZVRA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 442 reported | 119.4% | 3.3% | 97% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 226 reported | 1983.0% | 3.9% | 100% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 421 reported | 101.9% | 3.7% | 97% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ZVRA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 464M USD | 100 | 53 | |
| 2 | 8.9B HKD (≈$1.1B) | 99 | 61 | |
| 2 | 433M USD | 99 | 81 | |
| 2 | 885M USD | 99 | 33 | |
| 2 | 609M USD | 99 | 91 | |
| 6 | 3.9B HKD (≈$493M) | 98 | 66 | |
| 6 | 595M USD | 98 | 97 | |
| 6 | 804M CHF (≈$924M) | 98 | ||
| 6 | 914M USD | 98 | 81 |
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