IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Blank Capital Research ("BCR") is a technology platform, not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer. The algorithmically generated signals, scores, and rankings provided on this site ("God Mode" Signals) are for informational and research purposes only and do not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or an offer to sell or solicit an offer to buy any securities.
HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS: The "timing scores" and "regime signals" displayed are based on quantitative models. Hypothetical or simulated performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading. Also, since the trades have not actually been executed, the results may have under-or-over compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity.
RISK OF LOSS: Trading in financial markets involves a high degree of risk and may result in the loss of your entire investment. Data provided by third-party sources (Intrinio, Snowflake) is believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed for accuracy or completeness. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
© 2026 Blank Capital Research. All rights reserved. System Version: Aegis V8 (God Mode).
FibroBiologics, Inc. vs ASML HOLDING NV — Side-by-side quantitative comparison
Based on our 6-factor quantitative model, ASML HOLDING NV (ASML) is the stronger stock with a composite score of 77.0/100 and a Strong Buy rating, compared to FibroBiologics, Inc. (FBLG) at 20.7/100 (Avoid). ASML ranks #4 in our universe versus #4843 for FBLG, giving it an edge of 56.3 points across quality, value, momentum, investment, stability, and short interest factors.
For the Quality factor — which measures profitability and business quality through metrics like ROE, gross margins, and capital efficiency — ASML leads at 89/100, while FBLG trails at 9/100 (ASML: 89/100, FBLG: 9/100). The 80-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in quality characteristics between these stocks.
For the Value factor — which evaluates whether a stock is cheap or expensive relative to its earnings, book value, and cash flows — ASML leads at 86/100, while FBLG trails at 14/100 (ASML: 86/100, FBLG: 14/100). The 72-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in value characteristics between these stocks.
For the Momentum factor — which captures price trends and institutional sentiment over the trailing 3-12 months — ASML leads at 83/100, while FBLG trails at 7/100 (ASML: 83/100, FBLG: 7/100). The 77-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in momentum characteristics between these stocks.
For the Investment factor — which assesses capital allocation quality including reinvestment rates and asset growth — ASML leads at 44/100, while FBLG trails at 22/100 (ASML: 44/100, FBLG: 22/100). The 23-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in investment characteristics between these stocks.
For the Stability factor — which measures financial health through leverage ratios and price volatility — ASML leads at 70/100, while FBLG trails at 34/100 (ASML: 70/100, FBLG: 34/100). The 36-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in stability characteristics between these stocks.
For the Short Interest factor — which tracks institutional bearish positioning and potential risk from elevated short selling — ASML leads at 82/100, while FBLG trails at 49/100 (ASML: 82/100, FBLG: 49/100). The 33-point gap indicates a meaningful difference in short interest characteristics between these stocks.
Based on our 6-factor model, ASML HOLDING NV (ASML) is utilizing a stronger overall profile than FBLG, with a Composite Score of 77 vs 21. This represents a significant advantage. ASML dominates specifically in Quality (+80 points) and Momentum, making it the clear quantitative winner.
| Overall Rating | ||
| Composite Score | 77 | 21 |
| Rank | #4 | #4,843 |
| Stars | 5 / 5 | 1 / 5 |
| Action | Strong Buy | Avoid |
| Factor Scores | ||
| Quality | 89 | 9 |
| Value | 86 | 14 |
| Momentum | 83 | 7 |
| Stability | 70 | 34 |
| Investment | 44 | 22 |
| Short Interest | 82 | 49 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E Ratio | — | — |
| P/B Ratio | — | 183.04 |
| P/S Ratio | — | — |
| EV/EBITDA | — | — |
| Dividend Yield | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| ROE | 46.1% | -1397.7% |
| ROA | 16.6% | — |
| Gross Margin | 51.3% | — |
| Operating Margin | 31.9% | — |
| Net Margin | 26.8% | — |
| Growth & Risk | ||
| Revenue Growth | -4.0% | — |
| Debt/Equity | 25.00 | 3658.00 |
| Beta | 1.46 | 0.72 |
| Market | ||
| Market Cap | $272.09B | $23M |
Based on our 6-factor quantitative model, ASML currently has the higher composite score (77.0/100, Strong Buy) and ranks #4 in our universe. However, the "better" stock depends on your investment goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon. We recommend reviewing the full factor breakdown above before making a decision.
Our comparison analyzes six quantitative factors: Quality (profitability and business strength, 30% weight), Momentum (price trends, 25%), Value (valuation attractiveness, 15%), Investment (capital allocation, 10%), Stability (financial health, 10%), and Short Interest (institutional positioning, 10%). Each factor is scored 0-100 and combined into a composite score.
ASML has the higher value score at 86/100 compared to FBLG at 14/100. A higher value score indicates the stock trades at a more attractive valuation relative to its earnings, book value, and cash flows.
Our stock rankings and comparisons are updated daily using the latest available market data, financial statements, and price information. Factor scores reflect the most recent quarterly filings and trailing price data.