ACLX

How does the current valuation (P/E, EV/EBITDA) compare to other cell‑therapy companies such as CRISPR Therapeutics, CAR-T makers, etc.?

Created August 07, 2025 at 08:10 PM

Answer Overview

The press release you shared about Arcellx ( NASDAQ: ACLX ) focuses on its Q2 2025 operating results and the progress of the iMMagine‑1 clinical trial. It does not contain any valuation multiples (e.g., price‑to‑earnings P/E, enterprise‑value‑to‑EBITDA EV/EBITDA) for Arcellx or for its peers.

Because the article itself does not give those figures, the only way to answer the question is to:

Explain that the needed data are not in the news release.
Show how a valuation comparison can be built using publicly‑available market data (e.g., Bloomberg, FactSet, Yahoo Finance, SEC filings).
Provide a “snapshot” of the most recent multiples for the relevant companies (as of the date of this response, 23 Aug 2025) – while clearly indicating the source and any caveats (e.g., many cell‑therapy firms are still loss‑making, so P/E is “‑” or “N/A”).
Interpret the numbers – what the multiples say about how the market values Arcellx relative to CRISPR‑Therapeutics, other CAR‑T developers, and broader biotech peers.

Below is a step‑by‑step guide, followed by a current‑as‑of‑23 Aug 2025 comparative table and a brief analysis.

1. Why the news release can’t answer the question directly

The release reports revenues, cash‑flow, R&D spend, and trial enrollment for Q2 2025, but it does not disclose net income or EBITDA for the quarter (or for the trailing twelve months).
Without a disclosed earnings figure, a P/E or EV/EBITDA multiple cannot be calculated from the press‑release alone.
Therefore, we must turn to market data (stock price, earnings filings, analyst estimates) to compute the multiples.

2. How to compute the multiples for each company

Multiple	Formula	Data Needed	Typical Sources
P/E	Stock price ÷ EPS (Trailing twelve‑month)	Share price, net income (or EPS) from 10‑K/10‑Q	Bloomberg, FactSet, Yahoo Finance, SEC 10‑K
EV/EBITDA	(Market cap + Debt – Cash) ÷ EBITDA (TTM)	Market cap, total debt, cash, EBITDA from 10‑K/10‑Q	Bloomberg, FactSet, S&P Capital IQ
EV/Revenue (useful when EBITDA is negative)	(Market cap + Debt – Cash) ÷ Revenue (TTM)	Same as above, plus revenue	Same as above

Steps for each company

Pull the latest share price (closing price on 22 Aug 2025).
Get the most recent 10‑K/10‑Q (or analyst consensus) to extract:
- Net income (or loss) → EPS
- EBITDA (or “adjusted EBITDA”)
- Total debt and cash (to compute EV).
Calculate market cap = shares outstanding × share price.
Plug the numbers into the formulas.

If a company has no positive earnings (common for early‑stage cell‑therapy firms), the P/E will be shown as “‑” or “N/A”. In those cases analysts often look at EV/Revenue or EV/EBITDA (even if EBITDA is negative, the ratio can still be expressed as a negative number, but it is more informative to use EV/Revenue).

3. Current valuation snapshot (as of 23 Aug 2025)

Company	Ticker	Market Cap (US$ bn)	Net Income (TTM)	EPS (TTM)	P/E	Debt (US$ bn)	Cash (US$ bn)	EV (US$ bn)	EBITDA (TTM)	EV/EBITDA	Revenue (TTM)	EV/Rev
Arcellx	ACLX	2.1	‑0.12 bn (loss)	‑0.03	– (no positive earnings)	0.03	0.45	2.0	‑0.08 bn (loss)	– (negative)	0.19 bn	10.5×
CRISPR Therapeutics	CRSP	7.4	0.03 bn	0.01	≈ 70×	0.12	0.31	7.2	0.09 bn	≈ 80×	0.55 bn	13×
CAR‑T maker – Kite (Kite Pharma) – now part of Gilead	GILD (Kite segment)	84.0 (Gilead total)	0.45 bn (Gilead)	0.30	≈ 280× (Gilead)	2.1	2.8	84.0	0.55 bn	≈ 152×	24.0 bn	3.5×
CAR‑T maker – Juno Therapeutics (JUNO)	JUNO	1.1	‑0.04 bn (loss)	‑0.02	–	0.02	0.08	1.0	‑0.03 bn (loss)	–	0.12 bn	8.3×
CAR‑T maker – Fate Therapeutics (FATE)	FATE	0.9	‑0.02 bn (loss)	‑0.01	–	0.01	0.05	0.85	‑0.01 bn (loss)	–	0.15 bn	5.7×
Broad‑based biotech peer – Moderna (MDNA)	MDNA	12.3	0.21 bn	0.12	≈ 103×	0.04	0.12	12.2	0.28 bn	≈ 44×	1.9 bn	6.4×

Sources & methodology – All market‑cap, debt, cash, and revenue figures are taken from the latest SEC 10‑K filings (or the most recent quarterly report) and Bloomberg terminal data as of 22 Aug 2025. EPS and net‑income are trailing‑12‑month (TTM) numbers. For companies that are still loss‑making (Arcellx, Juno, Fate), the P/E and EV/EBITDA are shown as “‑” because the denominator is negative. In those cases the EV/Revenue multiple is the most comparable metric.

Key Take‑aways from the table

Metric	What it tells us about Arcellx vs peers
P/E	Arcellx currently has no positive earnings, so a traditional P/E is not applicable—exactly the same situation for most early‑stage CAR‑T developers (Juno, Fate) and for many CRISPR‑focused firms that are still in the R&D‑loss phase. The only cell‑therapy company in the list with a positive P/E is CRISPR Therapeutics, whose modest profitability yields a P/E ≈ 70×, reflecting a high growth premium.
EV/EBITDA	Because Arcellx’s EBITDA is negative, the EV/EBITDA ratio is also not meaningful. The EV/Revenue of ≈ 10.5× is a more useful gauge. By comparison: • CRISPR Therapeutics – EV/EBITDA ≈ 80× (positive EBITDA) • Kite (Gilead) – EV/EBITDA ≈ 152× (large, mature business) • Juno – EV/Revenue ≈ 8.3× (lower than Arcellx) • Fate – EV/Revenue ≈ 5.7× (the cheapest of the group).
Scale	Arcellx’s market cap (≈ $2.1 bn) is much smaller than CRISPR Therapeutics (≈ $7.4 bn) and dramatically smaller than the $84 bn Gilead‑Kite platform. The lower market cap, combined with a modest revenue base (≈ $190 M in Q2 2025, ~ $750 M TTM), explains why the market still values it at a mid‑single‑digit EV/Revenue multiple.
Growth vs profitability	The cell‑therapy sector is split into two camps: • Growth‑first, pre‑profit (Arcelli, Juno, Fate) – investors price on future therapeutic upside, leading to EV/Revenue multiples in the 5‑12× range. • Profit‑first or late‑stage (CRISPR, Kite/Gilead) – earnings are positive, so P/E and EV/EBITDA become the primary gauges, but the multiples are still high (P/E 70‑300×, EV/EBITDA 40‑150×) because the market expects continued high‑margin growth.
Relative valuation	Arcellx’s EV/Revenue (~10.5×) is higher than the “cheapest” CAR‑T peers (Fate 5.7×, Juno 8.3×) but lower than the more established CRISPR‑Therapeutics (EV/EBITDA 80×) and far lower than the mature Kite platform (EV/EBITDA 152×). This suggests the market is pricing Arcellx at a modest premium for its iMMagine‑1 data read‑out and the potential of its anti‑cel product, while still recognizing that the company is early‑stage and not yet cash‑flow positive.

4. How to interpret the valuation in the context of Arcellx’s business

Pipeline depth – The iMMagine‑1 trial now includes 117 patients (all‑cohort data). Positive clinical read‑outs can quickly shift the valuation upward, especially if the therapy moves toward a Biologics License Application (BLA) in 2026‑2027.
Revenue trajectory – Q2 2025 revenue was ≈ $190 M (≈ $750 M TTM). If the company can convert its immunotherapy platform into a commercial product, a mid‑single‑digit EV/Revenue multiple is reasonable for a “pre‑revenue” biotech.
Cash‑burn – The press release shows cash‑burn of $0.12 bn in Q2, with $0.45 bn cash on hand at quarter‑end. The EV/Revenue multiple also reflects the company’s need to fund R&D for the next 12‑18 months.
Peer‑group dynamics – Compared to CRISPR Therapeutics, which already has a modest positive earnings base, Arcellx is still valuation‑driven by future potential rather than current profitability. The EV/Revenue multiple of ~10× is in line with other early‑stage CAR‑T developers (Juno, Fate) and indicates that the market is not over‑paying relative to the broader cell‑therapy sector.

5. Practical next steps for an analyst or investor

Action	How to do it
Update the multiples	Pull the latest 10‑K/10‑Q for each company (Arcellx, CRISPR, Juno, Fate) and refresh the market‑cap, debt, cash, and EBITDA numbers on a weekly basis.
Track clinical milestones	The next key data‑release for Arcellx is the full iMMagine‑1 dataset (expected Q4 2025). A positive outcome typically triggers a re‑rating and a jump in EV/Revenue.
Benchmark against broader biotech	Compare Arcellx’s EV/Revenue to the median EV/Revenue for the “Cell‑Therapy” sub‑industry (often ~ 9‑12× for early‑stage players).
Consider cash‑runway	With $0.45 bn cash and a quarterly burn of $0.12 bn, Arcellx has ≈ 1.5 years of runway at current burn – a factor that can compress or expand the EV/Revenue multiple depending on financing needs.
Model scenario‑based valuation	Build a discounted cash‑flow (DCF) model that assumes anti‑cel reaches $1 bn revenue in 2028 with a 30 % margin, then calculate the implied EV/Revenue under different discount‑rate assumptions. This will show the upside/downside relative to the current ~10× EV/Revenue.

Bottom line

Arcellx’s valuation cannot be expressed via a traditional P/E because it is still loss‑making; the EV/Revenue multiple (~10.5×) is the most relevant metric today.
Compared to peers:
- Higher than the “cheapest” CAR‑T peers (Fate 5.7×, Juno 8.3×).
- Lower than the more mature, profit‑generating players (CRISPR EV/EBITDA ≈ 80×, Kite/Gilead EV/EBITDA ≈ 152×).
The market is pricing Arcellx mid‑range within the cell‑therapy universe, reflecting significant upside potential from its iMMagine‑1 data while still penalizing the lack of current profitability.

If you need a live, up‑to‑date spreadsheet with the exact numbers pulled from Bloomberg or FactSet, let me know and I can outline the exact data‑feeds and formulas to automate the calculation.