Expected price range
Each range is set from the stock’s recent price history and our Strong Sell rating, using its own 1-year realised volatility (83% annualised) as the width of a ~68% statistical band, and checked against that rating so the range leans the same way as our view. Starting price $11.88 (close 2026-11-06). The stock traded between $4.05 and $14.82 over the last 6 months and between $2.78 and $14.82 over the last year. This is an illustration of where our view and normal volatility point, not a forecast, price target or investment advice; the stock can move outside it.
| Company | Nov 25 | Dec 25 | Jan 26 | Feb 26 | Mar 26 | Apr 26 | May 26 | Jun 26 | Jul 26 | Aug 26 | Sep 26 | Oct 26 | 12-Mo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCL | -33% | -8% | +6% | -0% | -3% | +19% | +49% | +27% | -27% | +101% | +27% | -16% | +121% |
| ABSI | -26% | +10% | -14% | -8% | +9% | +66% | +36% | +72% | -33% | +16% | +19% | +3% | +160% |
| SDGR | -17% | +2% | -22% | -14% | -6% | +5% | +27% | +7% | -7% | +29% | +59% | -13% | +29% |
| RXRX | -16% | -12% | +2% | -12% | -16% | +13% | +4% | +2% | -18% | +13% | +21% | -2% | -27% |
| DNA | -29% | -10% | +8% | -25% | -9% | +38% | +11% | +6% | -18% | -16% | +88% | -13% | -14% |
| TWST | -3% | -1% | +29% | +14% | +1% | +23% | +14% | +54% | -11% | +52% | +39% | -21% | +365% |
Source: Yahoo Finance monthly adjusted close.
Quick Thesis
- Rated strong sell — valuation assumes a clinical and commercial step-up that the numbers do not yet support.
- Strongest balance-sheet support: $540.1M of cash and equivalents, with a 12.8x current ratio.
- Biggest operating risk: TTM operating cash flow of $-94.9M and levered free cash flow of $-46.4M.
- Valuation is rich at 48.9x EV/revenue and 58.2x price/sales.
- I would only turn more constructive if ABCL635 keeps advancing and quarterly revenue holds above $4.05M.
Executive Summary
Rating: STRONG SELL | ABCL
We’ll begin tracking this call’s performance since publication once sufficient adjusted-close data is available.
I would put my rating as a strong sell because the market is paying for a much cleaner clinical and commercial path than AbCellera’s current revenue, margin, and cash-flow profile justify. The company has real strategic assets — especially its integrated discovery-to-clinic platform and $540.1M of cash and equivalents — but the latest twelve months still show a business that is burning cash and has not yet converted its internal pipeline into durable economics. I would raise my rating more towards a buy if ABCL635 continues through Phase 2 without bridging-study friction and quarterly revenue holds above $40M, because that would show the internal pipeline is beginning to replace lumpy partner revenue with repeatable monetization.
Company Profile
AbCellera Biologics Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that discovers and develops first-in-class antibody medicines for high unmet-need indications. Today it earns revenue from partner-initiated programs through access fees, research payments, development milestones, royalties on net sales, and downstream stakes, while it is building an internal pipeline of owned assets. Founded in 2012, it shifted from a partner-led discovery model to a clinical-stage developer in late 2023 and brought its first two internal candidates, ABCL635 and ABCL575, into clinical trials in 2025. The company is headquartered in Vancouver, with major facilities in Vancouver and Sydney, and it opened a 130,000-square-foot clinical manufacturing facility in 2025 to support target-to-clinic development. As of December 31, 2025, it had about $700M of available liquidity and was listed on Nasdaq under ABCL.
Economic Moat
Business Model
The 130,000-square-foot clinical manufacturing facility in Vancouver is the clearest structural advantage in AbCellera’s 2026 10-K, because it lets the company control supply chain, shorten timelines, and protect intellectual property while moving antibody programs from target selection into early clinical testing. In my view, that is the hardest part of the platform to copy quickly, since the company says it spent approximately $1B over nearly 15 years to build the integrated system behind it. The moat is broader than the building itself: the platform is strongest in hard targets such as G protein-coupled receptors and ion channels, and the company also has a meaningful downstream portfolio from 104 partner-initiated programs with royalties, milestones, or co-ownership as of December 31, 2025. More than 110 issued or allowed patents and more than 50 pending applications worldwide add legal protection, but I see the operational integration as the more durable edge because it is embedded in process, not just in claims.
Business & Operating Risks
The main disclosed risk is that AbCellera still depends on future milestones, royalties, and internal drug development to replace a revenue base that is not self-funding. The company expects to continue incurring losses for the foreseeable future, and the 2025 net loss of $146.4M shows that the model is still consuming capital rather than generating it. It also faces execution risk on the internal pipeline, especially because ABCL635 and ABCL575 are still in early clinical development and the company may need additional studies before U.S. regulators accept Canadian data for later-stage work. Partner dependence remains another pressure point: partners control development timing, regulatory strategy, and commercialization, so AbCellera can do the discovery work and still fail to collect the economics if a partner reprioritizes or delays a program. The disclosed risks do not threaten the discovery platform itself, but they do directly test whether that platform can be turned into self-funding clinical value before cash burn forces a financing decision.
Management Discussion & Analysis
Management is clearly trying to answer those risks by shifting the company toward an internal-pipeline model and away from one-time platform buildout. The final large investments in the clinical manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters were substantially completed in 2025, which should reduce the need for heavy infrastructure spending from here, and the company says it will stop reporting partner-initiated program starts with downstreams after December 31, 2025. That said, the numbers still show a business in transition rather than one that has already crossed over: 2025 revenue rose to $75.1M from $28.8M in 2024, but much of that increase came from licensing and royalty revenue, including a $36.0 million Bruker settlement payment, not from a broad-based step-up in core research activity. In my view, management is responding to the right problem, but the operating model has not yet proven that the new clinical focus can replace the old partner-driven revenue mix.
Recent Events
The most important recent development is the clinical progression of ABCL635. On January 12, 2026, AbCellera said the first patients were dosed in the Phase 2 portion of its ongoing Phase 1/2 trial, and on May 11, 2026 it disclosed positive interim Phase 1 data from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. That sequence matters because it moves the asset from early human testing into a more informative efficacy stage, which is the kind of evidence investors need before assigning real value to the internal pipeline. The other material change is governance rather than operations: on June 1, 2026, the board appointed Victor Sandor as an independent director, and the June 5 filing confirms he is not joining committees. I view that as a modestly constructive oversight signal, but it does not change the core thesis on its own.
Financial Analysis
Growth
ABCL — Financial Growth (Quarterly, USD Mil)
| Metric | 2025-03-31 | 2025-06-30 | 2025-09-30 | 2025-12-31 | 2026-03-31 | 2026-06-30 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REVENUE (USD Mil) | — | 17.1 | 9 | 44.9 | 8.3 | 4 |
| EBIT (USD Mil) | — | -45.9 | -73.5 | -25.3 | -53.2 | -58.9 |
| EBITDA (USD Mil) | — | -38.8 | -66.3 | -17.3 | -44.5 | -50.1 |
| NET INCOME (USD Mil) | — | -34.7 | -57.1 | -8.9 | -43.2 | -55.4 |
| DILUTED EPS | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | — | -0.1 | -0.2 |
Source: Yahoo Finance — Quarterly Financial Statements
Revenue has been volatile rather than steadily compounding. Q2 2025 revenue was $17.1M, then fell to $9.0M in Q3 2025 before jumping to $44.9M in Q4 2025 and dropping back to $8.3M in Q1 2026 and $4.05M in Q2 2026. The only clean year-over-year comparison is Q2 2025 versus Q2 2026, where revenue fell 76.3%, while diluted EPS moved from -0.12 to -0.18, so losses widened faster than sales. I do not read the Q4 spike as a durable step-up; it looks more like a one-off, which means the latest quarter is a better guide to the underlying run rate.
Profitability
TTM gross margin was -199%, EBITDA margin was -302%, operating margin was -1,550.1%, and net margin was -249%. Those figures point to a clinical-stage business still absorbing heavy discovery, development, and infrastructure costs, so the economics are far from commercial scale. The gap between gross margin and EBITDA margin is especially wide, which tells me overhead and R&D are overwhelming product-level economics rather than a simple cost-of-revenue issue. TTM return on assets was -10.4% and return on equity was -17.3%, so capital is still being consumed rather than compounded; the smaller ROA loss versus ROE also shows leverage is amplifying the equity hit. The moat described above is real, but these margins show it has not yet translated into operating leverage.
Valuation
ABCL trades at 48.9x EV/revenue, 58.2x price/sales, and a -1.21% FCF yield, versus SDGR at 7.3x EV/revenue and 8.3x price/sales, DNA at 6.4x and 5.8x, TWST at 17.4x and 18.5x, RXRX at 25.2x and 32.2x, and ABSI at 991.7x and 1,118.1x. On a peer EV/revenue range of 6.4x to 991.7x, ABCL’s $66.2M revenue implies an illustrative enterprise value of about $424M to $65.6B, and after netting $135.6M of debt and $540.1M of cash across 324M shares, the implied per-share range is roughly $0 to $200; that wide spread shows why peer multiples alone do not settle the case. The more useful read is that AbCellera’s current valuation is not being supported by growth or cash generation, and its 12.2% short interest suggests the market is still skeptical that the clinical pivot will close that gap soon. Forward EPS is also weak at -$0.763, versus -$0.7 for ABSI, -$1.4 for SDGR, -$0.8 for RXRX, -$2.9 for DNA, and -$0.4 for TWST, so the stock is not cheap on a like-for-like earnings basis either.
Profitability
ABCL’s gross margin of -199%, EBITDA margin of -302%, operating margin of -1,550.1%, and net margin of -249% are all worse than the already negative peer group, with TWST the closest on gross margin at 52.0% and SDGR the closest on operating margin at -40.5%. The fact that ABCL is deeply negative on both gross and operating margin points to a cost-of-revenue problem, not just an opex scaling issue, which makes the gap look structural rather than temporary. That is the key reason I do not want to pay a premium multiple for the stock yet.
Leverage
ABCL’s debt/equity is 15.1%, net debt/EBITDA is 2.023x, and FCF margin is -70.17%, versus ABSI at 1.6%, 1.7x, and -3,241.0%, SDGR at 34.7%, 2.0x, and -12.2%, RXRX at 8.2%, 1.1x, and -297.7%, DNA at 101.2%, -0.5x, and -69.3%, and TWST at 24.4%, 0.5x, and -15.0%. ABCL’s balance sheet is not the weakest on debt, but the negative FCF margin means the capital structure is still consuming cash, so the leverage profile is a financing cushion rather than a competitive advantage. Compared with SDGR and TWST, AbCellera is not obviously overlevered, but it is also not earning its way into a better valuation.
Leverage
AbCellera’s leverage profile is mixed but still manageable. Total debt/equity was 15.1%, current ratio was 12.8x, and total debt was $135.6M, which gives the company a large near-term liquidity cushion and very limited refinancing pressure. Cash generation is weaker than the balance-sheet headline suggests: operating cash flow was $-94.9M, levered free cash flow was $-46.4M, net debt/EBITDA was 2.023x, and FCF margin was -70.17%. In my opinion, this is medium refinancing risk because the current ratio and low debt load leave room to absorb a downturn, but negative operating cash flow means that cushion is being consumed rather than rebuilt. The balance sheet is support, not flexibility, until cash flow turns positive.
Insider Activity
The insider transaction record is one-sided buying: 7 open-market purchases and 0 open-market sales over the 2025-03-06 to 2026-06-03 window. The activity is somewhat concentrated because Thermopylae Holdings Ltd. accounts for the largest block, but buying also comes from a director and the CFO, which broadens the signal and supports alignment with shareholders. I treat that as a constructive signal, but not one that can override the operating data.
Comparable Analysis
LF0 has published standalone analyses of these peers: Schrödinger (SDGR) (rated Sell).
Growth
| Company | Revenue TTM (USD Mil) | Revenue Growth YoY % | Diluted EPS TTM |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABCL | 66.2 | -76.3% | -0.5 |
| ABSI | 1.6 | -46.4% | -0.8 |
| SDGR | 269.2 | 18.7% | -0.8 |
| RXRX | 68.2 | 258.5% | -0.9 |
| DNA | 130.8 | -28.6% | -4.2 |
| TWST | 431.8 | 23.2% | -2.2 |
Source: Yahoo Finance
ABCL’s revenue fell 76.3% TTM to $66.2M, while ABSI declined 46.4%, DNA fell 28.6%, and TWST still grew 23.2% and SDGR grew 18.7%, so ABCL is the weakest top-line name in the set. RXRX is the only faster grower at 258.5%, but that pace is paired with a much larger $427.1M EBITDA loss, which means ABCL’s collapse is not being offset by a better operating profile.
Valuation
| Company | Current Share Price (USD) | Forward P/E | EV/Revenue | EV/EBITDA | Price/Sales (TTM) | Price/Book (mrq) | Market Cap (USD Mil) | Enterprise Value (USD Mil) | Beta (5Y Monthly) | FCF Yield % (TTM) | Forward EPS | Analyst Target Price – Low | Analyst Target Price – Mean | Analyst Target Price – High | # Analyst Opinions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCL | 11.9 | -15.6 | 48.9 | -16.2 | 58.2 | 4.1 | 3,850 | 3,238 | 1.59 | -1.2% | -0.8 | 9 | 17.2 | 30 | 12 |
| ABSI | 10.2 | -14.7 | 991.7 | -13 | 1,118.1 | 7.1 | 1,745 | 1,548 | 2.19 | -2.9% | -0.7 | 10 | 14.8 | 20 | 11 |
| SDGR | 29.8 | -22.1 | 7.3 | -15.5 | 8.3 | 7.4 | 2,231 | 1,977 | 1.65 | -1.5% | -1.4 | 20 | 30.9 | 36 | 7 |
| RXRX | 3.5 | -4.3 | 25.2 | -4 | 32.2 | 2.2 | 2,194 | 1,719 | 1.15 | -9.3% | -0.8 | 4 | 7.3 | 10 | 6 |
| DNA | 11.3 | -3.9 | 6.4 | -3.5 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 760 | 834 | 1.74 | -11.9% | -2.9 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 2 |
| TWST | 120.8 | -302 | 17.4 | -65.2 | 18.5 | 17 | 8,009 | 7,516 | 2.22 | -0.8% | -0.4 | 45 | 168.2 | 215 | 12 |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Profitability
| Company | Operating Margin (TTM) | Net Margin (TTM) | Return on Assets (TTM) | Return on Equity (TTM) | Gross Margin (TTM) | EBITDA Margin (TTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCL | -1,550.0% | -248.8% | -10.4% | -17.3% | -198.9% | -302.2% |
| ABSI | -10,741.5% | 0.0% | -34.1% | -57.7% | -5,395.6% | -7,655.7% |
| SDGR | -40.5% | -22.0% | -13.2% | -19.0% | 58.5% | -47.5% |
| RXRX | -664.0% | 0.0% | -23.9% | -48.7% | -516.8% | -625.9% |
| DNA | -157.5% | -192.0% | -15.8% | -58.2% | 69.8% | -179.9% |
| TWST | -30.6% | -31.7% | -13.1% | -29.6% | 52.0% | -26.7% |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Leverage
| Company | Total Debt/Equity % (mrq) | Current Ratio (mrq) | Total Debt (mrq, USD Mil) | Operating Cash Flow TTM (USD Mil) | Free Cash Flow TTM (USD Mil) | Net Debt/EBITDA (TTM) | FCF Margin % (TTM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABCL | 15.1 | 12.8 | 135.6 | -94.9 | -46.4 | 2 | -70.2% |
| ABSI | 1.6 | 10.6 | 3.8 | -108.1 | -50.6 | 1.7 | -3,241.0% |
| SDGR | 34.7 | 2.7 | 104.6 | -112.6 | -33 | 2 | -12.2% |
| RXRX | 8.2 | 5 | 74.7 | -310.5 | -203.1 | 1.1 | -297.7% |
| DNA | 101.2 | 4.7 | 397.2 | -167 | -90.6 | -0.5 | -69.3% |
| TWST | 24.4 | 2.7 | 108.6 | -53.1 | -64.8 | 0.5 | -15.0% |
Source: Yahoo Finance
Conclusion
I would put my rating as a strong sell because the key tension in this name is still unresolved: AbCellera has a credible clinical platform and a large cash cushion, but the numbers do not yet show that the internal pipeline is replacing the lumpy partner revenue base. The latest twelve months still show negative operating cash flow, a -302.2% EBITDA margin, and a valuation of 48.9x EV/revenue, so the stock is already discounting a much cleaner future than the current financials support.
I would move my rating more towards a buy if ABCL635 keeps advancing through Phase 2 without bridging-study friction and quarterly revenue holds above $40M, because that would show the internal pipeline is beginning to create repeatable economics rather than just optionality. I would also want to see gross margin move toward positive territory and operating cash burn narrow materially, since those are the first signs that the platform is turning science into a business that can fund itself.
I would move from strong sell to sell if quarterly revenue slips back toward the $4M to $8M range while operating cash outflow stays near the current pace, because that would confirm the company is still relying on a lumpy partner base while the internal pipeline remains too early to support the valuation. A second negative trigger would be any sign that the current liquidity cushion has to be used for financing rather than for clinical execution, since that would turn today’s cash balance from support into dilution risk.
Weighing both sides, I think the bear case is more likely to show up first because the financial base is still weak and the clinical upside has not yet translated into durable revenue. The stock can work if the pipeline keeps progressing, but until the company proves that the new clinical model can narrow losses and stabilize cash generation, I would stay cautious.
What to Watch Next
- ABCL635 Phase 2 progress — continued advancement would support a move toward Buy.
- Quarterly revenue above $40M — would suggest the internal pipeline is replacing one-off partner revenue.
- Gross margin moving toward positive territory — would show the platform is starting to monetize.
- Operating cash outflow narrowing materially — would reduce the need to fund losses from the balance sheet.
- Any financing tied to clinical execution — would raise dilution risk and weaken the thesis.
What’s your take? I rated AbCellera Biologics (ABCL) STRONG SELL above — but the goal here is to get this right, not just to publish an opinion. What would you add to this analysis, or which risk or catalyst do you think I’m under- or over-weighting? Tell me in the comments.
Our track record: every directional call is tracked publicly on The Scorecard, and Stocks Covered lists every company we have rated and when.
Sources
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — filed 2026-02-24
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-06-05)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-05-11)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-02-24)
- SEC 8-K Filing (2026-01-14)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-06-03)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-05-18)
- SEC Form 4 Insider Transaction (2026-03-02)
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — FY2026
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — FY2025
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — FY2024
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — FY2023
- SEC 10-K Annual Report — FY2022
Data sourced from Yahoo Finance and SEC EDGAR. Not investment advice.
Leave a Comment