Quick Summary — OLMA scores higher on quality with 5.0/10 vs ORIC's 4.7/10. OLMA trades at $10.69 while ORIC trades at $7.62. Both analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR data across 13 institutional models.
OLMA scores higher with a 5.0/10 quality rating vs ORIC's 4.7/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.
At $10.69, OLMA trades +71.0% above its Bayesian DCF fair value of $3.10, while ORIC at $7.62 trades +70.5% above its estimate of $2.25. OLMA shows a wider gap between price and intrinsic value.
OLMA earns a Quality of Company score of 5.0/10 compared to ORIC's 4.7/10. The scores are closely matched, indicating similar fundamental quality profiles. The QOC score synthesizes 32 signals spanning profitability margins, revenue growth, free cash flow, capital allocation, and leverage.
OLMA carries a SAFE value trap risk (18/100) while ORIC shows SAFE risk (18/100). Both companies show manageable value trap risk, suggesting their current valuations are not artificially depressed by fundamental deterioration.
Both OLMA and ORIC operate in Biotechnology, which has 566 stocks tracked by CirclFi. Same-industry comparisons provide the most direct insight into relative valuation since both companies face similar regulatory environments, market dynamics, and competitive pressures. Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN), and ensemble methods (CUCE).
11 hidden models compare OLMA vs ORIC differently — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more. Some may disagree with the 2 you see above.
Bloomberg Terminal: ~$2,000/mo · FactSet: ~$1,000/mo · CirclFi: $0.90/day
See All 13 Models — $0.90/dayWe don’t predict prices. We show you what 13 independent mathematical frameworks say a stock is worth — and let you decide.