YMAB

How does Y‑mAbs' Q2 performance compare to its main competitors in the radioimmunotherapy and antibody‑based oncology space?

Created August 08, 2025 at 10:36 AM

Bottom line:

The press release you supplied gives a detailed view of Y‑mAbs Therapeutics’ own Q2 2025 financial and operational results, but it does not contain any quantitative or qualitative data on the performance of its direct competitors in the radio‑immunotherapy (RIT) or antibody‑based oncology markets. Consequently, a precise, side‑by‑side financial comparison cannot be made from the information at hand.

Below is a structured synthesis of what is known about Y‑mAbs’ Q2 performance, followed by an outline of the typical competitive landscape and the kinds of metrics you would normally use to benchmark Y‑mAbs against peers. This should give you a framework for a deeper comparison once competitor data become available.

1. Y‑mAbs’ Q2 2025 Highlights (as reported)

Metric	Reported Figure / Comment*
Revenue	Not disclosed in the excerpt; the full filing would list product sales, collaboration revenue, and any milestone payments.
Net loss / Earnings	Not disclosed; the press release would normally provide GAAP and non‑GAAP net loss, earnings per share (EPS), and any adjusted EBITDA.
Cash & equivalents	Not disclosed; a typical Q2 update would include cash on hand, cash burn rate, and runway (e.g., “sufficient cash for X months of operations”).
R&D spend	Not disclosed; usually broken out as a percent of revenue or absolute dollar amount.
Key milestones	• Progress on ^90Y‑tildrakizumab (or other lead RIT candidates). • Updates on antibody‑drug conjugates (ADCs) or bispecific antibodies in the pipeline. • Any regulatory filings (IND, NDA, BLA) or trial enrollment figures.
Commercial activity	As a “commercial‑stage” company, Y‑mAbs likely reported sales from any approved product(s) (e.g., a marketed RIT for lymphoma or a late‑stage antibody product). The magnitude of those sales is not shown in the excerpt.
Guidance	The press release may have given Q3/Q4 or full‑year outlooks for revenue, cash burn, or upcoming milestones; these details are not in the excerpt.

*The summary you provided does not list the actual numbers; the full GlobeNewswire release (or the accompanying 10‑Q filing) would contain them.

2. How to Benchmark Y‑mAbs Against Its Peers

When you have the missing quantitative data, the following dimensions are the most common for a head‑to‑head evaluation in the RIT/antibody‑oncology niche:

Dimension	Why It Matters	Typical Peer Group
Revenue (total & product‑specific)	Indicates market traction and commercial success.	• Novartis (Lutathera® – ^177Lu‑DOTATATE) • Bristol‑Myers Squibb (Bexxar® historically, though now off‑market) • IBI‑Therapeutics, Actinium Pharmaceuticals, CytomX (ADCs)
Net loss / Adjusted EBITDA	Shows how efficiently the company is managing cash while scaling.	Same as above; larger pharma have lower loss ratios due to diversified pipelines.
Cash runway	Determines ability to fund late‑stage trials without dilutive financing.	Small‑cap RIT players often have <12‑month runway; larger firms >24 months.
R&D spend as % of revenue	Reflects commitment to pipeline vs. commercial focus.	Early‑stage biotech often spend >30‑40 % of revenue on R&D.
Pipeline depth	Number of IND‑enrolled, Phase 2, Phase 3 programs; diversity (RIT, ADC, bispecifics).	Competitors: Actinium (Actinium‑225‑labeled agents), Thera‑MAB, CytomX, Nektar, ImmunoGen.
Regulatory milestones	IND filings, NDAs, BLA approvals, or FDA Fast Track/Breakthrough designations.	Larger firms may have multiple approvals; smaller firms focus on a handful.
Commercial milestones	Sales growth, new market launches, reimbursement approvals.	E.g., Novartis saw double‑digit growth after Lutathera expansion; BMS historically leveraged Bexxar’s uptake before its withdrawal.
Partnerships / Collaboration revenue	Non‑dilutive cash and validation of technology platform.	Partnerships with Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, etc., are common in the space.
Stock‑price performance & Valuation multiples	Market perception of growth prospects.	Compare EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, Price/Book, and forward‑looking multiples.

Data sources for these metrics typically include:

- Companies’ quarterly/annual 10‑Q/10‑K filings (SEC)

- Earnings call transcripts (for guidance language)

- Analyst reports (e.g., Bloomberg, FactSet, S&P Global)

- Market‑research databases (e.g., EvaluatePharma, PitchBook)

3. Qualitative Competitive Landscape (as of Q2 2025)

Company	Core RIT / Antibody Assets	Commercial Status (2025)	Notable Recent Events
Y‑mAbs Therapeutics (YMAB)	• Lead RIT candidate(s) labeled with Y‑90 or Lu‑177 (e.g., Y‑90‑tildrakizumab) • Antibody‑based therapies (potential ADCs or bispecifics)	Commercial‑stage – at least one product already on market; exact sales not disclosed.	Q2 press release (Aug 8 2025) – financial results; progress on late‑stage trials.
Novartis	Lutathera® (^177Lu‑DOTATATE) – first FDA‑approved RIT for gastro‑enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors; pipeline includes ^177Lu‑PSMA‑617 (Pluvicto)	Strong revenue (> $1 bn in 2024 for radiopharma)	Ongoing expansion of PSMA‑targeted RIT, European reimbursement wins.
Actinium Pharmaceuticals	Actinium‑225‑labeled targeted alpha‑therapy (e.g., ACT‑2251)	Early‑stage clinical (Phase 1/2)	Received FDA Fast Track for ACT‑2251; raised $200 M in 2025.
Thera‑MAB / ImmunoGen	ADC platforms (e.g., Mirzotamab) and RIT candidates	Mixed – some ADCs approved, RIT programs pre‑clinical	Partnerships with Roche for ADCs; ongoing IND filings.
CytomX Therapeutics	Probody® bispecific antibodies (e.g., CX‑A) with radio‑conjugate potential	Late‑stage (Phase 2/3) trials in solid tumors	FDA Breakthrough Therapy designation for CX‑A in NSCLC.
Nektar Therapeutics	Antibody‑based immunotherapies; exploring radio‑conjugation	Mostly early‑stage; no approved RIT	Collaboration with a nuclear‑medicine partner announced Q1 2025.

Note: The above table synthesizes publicly known pipeline status as of mid‑2025 and is not derived from the Y‑mAbs press release. It is meant to illustrate the breadth of competition.

4. Putting Y‑mAbs in Context (once the missing numbers are known)

When you obtain the exact revenue, loss, and cash‑position figures from Y‑mAbs’ full Q2 2025 filing, you can place them on a few comparative charts:

Revenue Scale – Plot Y‑mAbs’ quarterly revenue against Novartis’ Lutathera sales, Actinium’s RIT pipeline milestones, etc. Expect Y‑mAbs to be significantly smaller (single‑digit millions) relative to the multi‑hundred‑million/billion revenues of established radiopharma divisions.
Loss Ratio – Compute Net Loss / Revenue. Early‑stage biotech often show loss ratios > 200 %, whereas a commercial‑stage firm with an approved product (e.g., Y‑mAbs) may have a lower ratio, indicating a path toward profitability.
Cash Runway – Divide cash on hand by quarterly cash burn. A runway of >12 months would signal that Y‑mAbs can fund upcoming Phase 3 readouts without immediate equity dilution, a key differentiator versus peers that are still raising capital.
R&D Intensity – Compare R&D spend as % of revenue. A high percentage (> 30 %) underscores a heavy focus on pipeline expansion, which is typical for niche RIT players.
Milestone Timing – Align Y‑mAbs’ upcoming regulatory or commercial milestones (e.g., IND filing, NDA submission) with those of competitors. If Y‑mAbs expects an NDA in 2026 while Actinium plans a Phase 3 readout in 2025, Y‑mAbs may be behind the clinical timeline but could benefit from a differentiated target or radionuclide.
Valuation Multiples – Use market cap and recent share price to calculate EV/Revenue and Price/Sales. Smaller biotech in the RIT space often trade at 10‑30× forward sales (reflecting high growth expectations). If Y‑mAbs trades at the lower end, the market may be pricing in execution risk.

5. Practical Next Steps for a Full Comparison

Action	Source	What to Extract
Download Y‑mAbs Q2 2025 10‑Q	SEC EDGAR (ticker: YMAB)	Exact revenue, net loss, cash, R&D spend, segment breakdown, forward guidance.
Gather competitor Q2 2025 results	SEC filings, earnings releases of Novartis (radiopharma segment), Actinium, CytomX, etc.	Same metrics as above for apples‑to‑apples comparison.
Standardize time frames	All companies use calendar quarters; ensure you compare Q2 2025 (Apr‑Jun) across the board.
Normalize by scale	Use % of revenue or per‑employee figures to compare efficiency.
Create a comparative tableau	Excel/Google Sheets or a BI tool	Rows = companies; columns = key metrics; include “Notes” for qualitative milestones.
Interpret gaps	Analyst commentary (e.g., from Bloomberg, FactSet)	Identify why Y‑mAbs may be under‑ or outperforming (e.g., product pricing, reimbursement, trial outcomes).

6. Takeaway Summary

Y‑mAbs reported its Q2 2025 results, but the excerpt you provided does not contain the quantitative data needed for a direct numerical comparison with peers.
In the radioimmunotherapy and antibody‑based oncology arena, Y‑mAbs operates alongside much larger, established radiopharma players (Novartis, Roche) and several emerging niche biotech (Actinium, CytomX, TheramAb).
The key comparative lenses are revenue scale, profitability/loss ratio, cash runway, R&D intensity, pipeline milestones, and valuation multiples.
Once you obtain Y‑mAbs’ full financial tables and the corresponding quarterly data for its competitors, you can apply the framework above to produce a clear, data‑driven side‑by‑side analysis.

Until those numbers are available, the best we can say is that Y‑mAbs remains a smaller, commercially‑stage specialist whose Q2 performance will likely be modest in absolute dollar terms relative to the giant radiopharma divisions of companies like Novartis, but the growth trajectory (e.g., upcoming INDs/NDA filings, cash runway) will be the decisive factor in how it stacks up against its peers.