NEURACAP
Sector ReportSep 28, 2026 · 20 pages · Free to read

Genetic and Screening Services Sector Outlook — September 2026

This sector outlook maps 11 Genetic and Screening Services companies across reference testing and adjacent business models, comparing EV/Revenue valuation, growth cohorts and precedent transactions. Built for owners, management teams and boards assessing where growth converts into durable, collectible revenue.

Download PDFDownload PowerPoint

Key figures

3.1x
Sector median valuation
EV/Revenue (CY2027E), rated companies
16.6x
Premium-tier valuation
EV/Revenue (CY2027E), premium end
0.7x
Discount-tier valuation
EV/Revenue (CY2027E), discount end
7.5x
Precedent transaction multiple
LTM at announcement, disclosed precedent

Read the report

C:\Users\dawoo\OneDrive\Desktop\Deployments\neuracap_sector_reports_fable\Code\NeuraCap_Sector_Report_Pipeline_v2.1.0\ncsr\deck_kit\assets\logo_light_full.png

HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › GENETIC AND SCREENING SERVICES

Genetic and Screening Services Trade as Two Markets, Priced on Different Terms

The report shows where valuation sits across testing models, growth profiles and precedent transactions.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E)

Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

1

1 / 20

Executive summary

Genetic and Screening Services trades as two markets rather than one. Reference laboratory testing holds a median EV/Revenue of 4.5x versus 0.8x for adjacent models, and the five faster-growing names trade at 13.7x versus 1.0x for slower-growing peers. Precedent transactions show EV/Revenue values of 7.5x and 4.0x, underscoring that model mix and revenue durability drive valuation as much as growth itself. The path to a higher valuation runs through paid volume, reimbursement quality and lower cost per test.

Key findings

  • Reference laboratory testing holds a higher valuation than adjacent business models.
  • Faster-growing names trade at a wide premium to slower-growing peers.
  • The premium and discount valuation tiers require different operating priorities.
  • Precedent deal multiples span a broad range, reflecting model and buyer fit.

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

  1. 01

    HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › GENETIC AND SCREENING SERVICES

    Cover page introducing the Genetic and Screening Services sector outlook as of September 28, 2026.

    This report looks at where the market values genetic and screening service providers as of September 2026, using EV/Revenue on 2027 consensus estimates as the primary lens. We'll show why growth alone doesn't explain the ratings we see, and what separates the two valuation tiers.

    Everything on this page

    HEALTH CARE › HEALTH CARE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES › GENETIC AND SCREENING SERVICES Genetic and Screening Services Trade as Two Markets, Priced on Different Terms The report shows where valuation sits across testing models, growth profiles and precedent transactions. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E) Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

  2. 02
    CONTENTS

    What This Report Covers

    Contents page listing the report's five sections plus the appendix.

    The report runs five sections and an appendix, starting with the bottom line so a reader who only has a few minutes still gets the full conclusion. From there we build out the market landscape, the valuation and situation analysis, precedent transactions, and the strategic implications. We designed it this way so each section stands on its own, but together they build a complete picture.

    Everything on this page

    CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Genetic and Screening Services Split Between Scaled Testing and Adjacent Models 02 The Landscape Reference Laboratory Testing Holds the Higher Valuation 03 Valuation & Situations The Premium End Credits Growth That Can Endure 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Show What Buyers Agreed to Pay 05 Strategic Implications A Higher Standing Requires Growth That Converts into Revenue Quality 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

  3. 03
    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

    Genetic and Screening Services Split Between Reference Testing and Adjacent Models

    This page summarizes the report's core finding that reference testing and adjacent models trade at very different valuations.

    Genetic and Screening Services isn't one market — it's two, priced on different terms. Reference laboratory testing carries the higher valuation position, while adjacent business models sit meaningfully lower, and the same split shows up again when we group companies by growth rate. That's the story we'll build out page by page, and it's why we lead with it.

    Everything on this page

    01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Genetic and Screening Services Split Between Reference Testing and Adjacent Models The full story on one page · figures on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), market data as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (10 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Faster Growth Sits with the Higher Valuation Across the five faster-growing names, forward EV / Revenue is 13.7x, alongside 1.0x for the five slower-growing names. A forward multiple already credits forecast growth, so durability still matters. 2 Reference Testing Holds the Higher Position Esoteric reference laboratory testing stands at 4.5x, compared with 0.8x for adjacent models. Billable volume, payer mix and recurring testing cadence remain central to sustaining that position. 3 The Two Ends Require Different Operating Priorities The premium end stands at 16.6x, while the discount end stands at 0.7x. Owners at the lower end need progress in paid volume, average selling price and cost per test. 4 Transaction Values Sit Alongside Strategic Fit Recorded precedent transactions include EV / Revenue values of 7.5x and 4.0x. The range supports careful attention to target model, buyer type and reimbursement profile. 3.1x Sector median EV/Revenue CY2027E consensus · EV/Revenue is the lens because only 4 of 11 names carry a meaningful forward EBITDA 16.6x Premium end EV/Revenue vs 0.7x at the discount end top quartile (n=3) against bottom quartile (n=3) on EV/Revenue — the spread the report explains 9 Transactions with disclosed terms 28 recorded in this tier · 3 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

  4. 04
    SECTION 02

    02

    Divider introducing the market landscape section.

    Next we map the sector by business segment to show where reference testing sits relative to adjacent models. The two carry different economics, and that difference shows up directly in valuation.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Reference Laboratory Testing Holds the Higher Valuation The sector combines testing platforms with adjacent business models that carry different economics. 02 of 06 Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

  5. 05
    02 · MARKET MAP

    Reference Laboratories Hold the Sector’s Main Valuation Pool

    This page groups the 11 approved companies by business segment and shows median EV/Revenue for each group.

    When we group the approved universe by business segment, reference laboratories hold the sector's main valuation pool. The median EV/Revenue for that segment sits well above the other groups shown here, which tells us the market is paying up for one kind of business model over another. That gap is the starting point for everything else in this report.

    Everything on this page

    02 · MARKET MAP Reference Laboratories Hold the Sector’s Main Valuation Pool 11 approved companies grouped by business segment · median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) per group · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Segment grouping follows the platform's classification; group medians on rated names only. "Why it matters" lines are NeuraCap views. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 ESOTERIC REFERENCE LABORATORY TESTING 8 cos median 4.5x Natera (NTRA) GRAIL (GRAL) Veracyte (VCYT) GeneDx Holdings (WGS) Personalis (PSNL) Castle Biosciences (CSTL) Myriad Genetics (MYGN) Fulgent Genetics (FLGT) This group combines clinical testing, reimbursement exposure and billable-volume growth across most of the set. ADJACENT MODELS 3 cos median 0.8x Celcuity (CELC) Prenetics Global (PRE) OraSure (OSUR) These businesses carry different revenue mechanics and are associated with a lower valuation position in the set.

  6. 06
    02 · LANDSCAPE

    Testing Platforms and Adjacent Models Carry Different Economics

    This page describes what each segment does and why its economics differ.

    Testing platforms and adjacent models look similar from the outside but carry different economics — recurring testing cadence, payer mix and billable volume all vary by segment. We walk through what each group actually does so the valuation gap on the prior page has real operating context behind it. Full company-level detail sits in the appendix if you want to trace any single name.

    Everything on this page

    02 · LANDSCAPE Testing Platforms and Adjacent Models Carry Different Economics Segment view of the approved universe · EV / Revenue (CY2027E) medians on rated names · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. "What they do / why it matters" is a NeuraCap view. Full company-level detail in the appendix and companion tables. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median EV/Revenue Names to know What they do — and why it matters Esoteric reference laboratory testing 8 73% 4.5x Natera, Inc. (NTRA) · GRAIL Inc. (GRAL) · +6 more Testing carries the premium. This group represents 73% of the set and stands at 4.5x. Its value case rests on converting coverage, clinical use and ordering integration into collected revenue. Adjacent models 3 27% 0.8x Celcuity Inc. (CELC) · Prenetics Global Limited (PRE) · +1 more Different models price differently. Adjacent models represent 27% of the set and stand at 0.8x. Their economics depend more heavily on product mix, channel structure and the path to repeat demand.

  7. 07
    SECTION 03

    03

    Divider introducing the public market valuation section.

    Ten of the eleven companies carry a forward EV/Revenue estimate, and the gap between the top and bottom of that range is wide. The next few pages show where that gap comes from and what separates the two ends.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Premium End Credits Growth That Can Endure Ten of the 11 companies have a forward EV / Revenue estimate, with a wide gap between the two ends. 03 of 06 Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

  8. 08
    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

    The Premium End Credits Growth That Can Hold Up

    This page ranks all ten rated companies by EV/Revenue and shows the sector median.

    We use EV/Revenue as the primary lens because only four of the eleven companies carry a meaningful forward EBITDA estimate, so margin isn't measurable across the full set yet. Sorting the ten rated companies from highest to lowest multiple against the 3.1x sector median shows a clear premium tier and a clear discount tier. The question this raises, and the one we answer next, is what separates the two.

    Everything on this page

    03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Premium End Credits Growth That Can Hold Up EV / Revenue (CY2027E) · all 10 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 3.1x · EV/Revenue is the lens because only 4 of 11 names carry a meaningful forward EBITDA · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (10 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Tier zones are NeuraCap groupings cut at the rated set's quartiles; every multiple quoted on this page is a median on the same EV / Revenue (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 16.6x CORE · median 3.1x DISCOUNT · median 0.7x Sector median 3.1x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The upper end scales. The premium tier stands at 16.6x. These names combine higher observed growth with business models positioned around clinical testing demand. The lower end resets. The discount tier stands at 0.7x. Improving paid volume, revenue mix and cost per test would strengthen the operating case. Forward valuation tests durability. A forward EV / Revenue multiple already credits expected growth. A premium that remains after that adjustment signals confidence in the durability of the forecast.

  9. 09
    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

    Faster Growth Is Associated with a Higher Forward Valuation

    This page compares median EV/Revenue for faster-growing versus slower-growing companies.

    Splitting the rated names into faster- and slower-growing cohorts shows faster growth associated with a substantially higher median valuation. We're careful to call this an association, not a cause — a forward revenue multiple already prices in expected growth, so the market isn't rewarding growth in isolation. That distinction matters for how an owner should read their own position on this page.

    Everything on this page

    03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Faster Growth Is Associated with a Higher Forward Valuation Median EV / Revenue (CY2027E) by revenue-growth cohort and by EBITDA-margin cohort (each split at its covered median) · rated names with estimates · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=5; slower n=5; higher-margin n=0; lower-margin n=0). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/Revenue, median per cohort · growth split at 18% · EBITDA-margin split at n/a The Faster-Growing Group Holds the Valuation Advantage On the five names above the 18% growth split, forward EV / Revenue is 13.7x. On the five names below it, the figure is 1.0x. Paid Volume Matters More than Booked Volume Alone Cash collections versus accrual, denial experience and payer mix determine how reported growth translates into revenue quality. Scale Must Improve Test Economics Automation, laboratory utilization and menu mix can lower cost per test as billable volume expands. Coverage Quality Supports Revenue Durability In-network contracts, coverage determinations and guideline inclusion can reinforce repeat ordering and collection quality.

  10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Growth and Valuation Reveal Four Different Management Positions

    This page places companies into four quadrants based on valuation and growth relative to the sector medians.

    Cutting the universe on EV/Revenue versus the 3.1x sector median and on revenue growth versus the 18% covered median produces four distinct situations, not four recommendations. Where a company sits in this map says something about its current market position, but it doesn't tell us why it's there. That's a judgment call we leave to the owner and the next page's questions.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Growth and Valuation Reveal Four Different Management Positions Cut on EV / Revenue vs the sector median (3.1x) (rows) and revenue growth vs the covered median (18%) (columns) · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Higher Growth, Higher Valuation Above-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 4 names Natera, Inc. (NTRA) · GRAIL Inc. (GRAL) · GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS) · +1 more The 4 names above both benchmarks have growth and valuation moving together. Their priority is sustaining billable volume while protecting collection quality. Lower Growth, Higher Valuation Above-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 1 names Veracyte, Inc. (VCYT) The 1 name above 3.1x but below the growth benchmark retains a higher valuation position despite slower growth. Its operating question is whether revenue quality and margin can support that position. Higher Growth, Lower Valuation Below-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 1 names Prenetics Global Limited (PRE) The 1 name below the valuation benchmark but above 18% growth has not seen valuation move alongside reported growth. Revenue mix, repeat demand and collection quality are the key tests. Lower Growth, Lower Valuation Below-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 4 names Castle Biosciences, Inc. (CSTL) · Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN) · Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (FLGT) · +1 more The 4 names below both benchmarks face a combined growth and valuation challenge. Improving paid volume and cost per test would strengthen their standing.

  11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Buyers Price Some Revenue Lines Higher than Others, and Mix Is Where the Value Sits

    This page frames the strategic questions an owner or acquirer should resolve about revenue mix.

    Buyers appear to price some revenue lines higher than others, which means mix — not just growth — is where a lot of the value sits. We frame this as a set of questions for an owner or acquirer to work through, not as a prescription, because the right answer depends on the specific menu and payer relationships involved. Getting the mix question right is, in our view, the highest-leverage move available to most companies in this sector.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Buyers Price Some Revenue Lines Higher than Others, and Mix Is Where the Value Sits NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Concentrate on Paid-Volume Growth Prioritize assays and channels where ordering growth converts into cash collections with manageable denials and appeals. What changes the answer: Collections begin to track billable volume across the priority menu. Deepen Reimbursement Quality Focus commercial effort on coverage, in-network contracts and payer mix where they can improve realized revenue per test. What changes the answer: Paid claims and average selling price improve across targeted payers. Lower the Cost per Test Direct automation and laboratory investment toward workflows where higher volume can improve unit economics. What changes the answer: Incremental volume produces a sustained reduction in cost per test. Choose Menu Depth Deliberately Balance focused clinical conviction against broader menu economics, sales-force capacity and laboratory utilization. What changes the answer: A menu line demonstrates repeat ordering, collection quality and an efficient commercial path.

  12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    Divider introducing the precedent transactions section.

    Precedent transactions show us what buyers have actually agreed to pay, across both strategic combinations and capital-markets deals. The next pages walk through a handful of these as case studies before the full list in the appendix.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Show What Buyers Agreed to Pay Recorded terms span strategic testing combinations and capital-markets transactions. 04 of 06 Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

  13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Precedent Transactions Show a Broad Range of Agreed Values

    This page presents three precedent transactions with disclosed terms as case studies.

    We've selected three of the nine transactions with disclosed terms to walk through as case studies, using multiples on LTM financials at announcement. These deal multiples sit on a different basis than the CY2027E public multiples elsewhere in this report, so we don't draw a direct spread between them. What they do show is a broad range of agreed values, which is consistent with the segment and growth differences we've already covered.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Precedent Transactions Show a Broad Range of Agreed Values 3 of 9 transactions with disclosed terms, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete list is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 28 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 19 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Nov-2025 $23.0B Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories Agreed a Large Combination With Exact Sciences Corporation EV / LTM revenue 7.5x EV / LTM EBITDA 68.6x WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The pairing suggests interest in adding a genetic testing platform to a broader medical technology offering. The strategic fit spans screening demand, clinical channels and diagnostic infrastructure. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The announced transaction was recorded at $23.0B, 7.5x EV / Revenue and 68.6x EV / EBITDA. The two measures frame both current scale and the earnings expected from a more mature platform. May-2022 $1.2B Artisan Acquisition Corp. Artisan Acquisition Corp. Combined With Prenetics Group Limited EV / LTM revenue 4.0x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests a capital-markets route for a genetic testing platform. The fit joined acquisition capital with Prenetics Group Limited’s testing model. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The completed transaction was recorded at $1.2B and 4.0x EV / Revenue. That places the target below the sector’s premium public tier. Feb-2021 $3.4B VG Acquisition Corp. VG Acquisition Corp. Agreed a Combination With 23andMe, Inc. EV / LTM revenue n/a EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests capital-markets interest in a consumer genetics platform. The fit paired acquisition capital with a direct consumer relationship and genetic data model. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The announced transaction was recorded at $3.4B. The disclosed value provides a scale reference for consumer genetics.

  14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    Divider introducing the strategic implications section.

    Reaching a higher valuation position appears to require growth that converts into real revenue quality — paid volume, reimbursement and lower cost per test. The next page turns that into a set of questions for owners, management and boards.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS A Higher Standing Requires Growth That Converts into Revenue Quality Owners can strengthen their position through paid volume, reimbursement quality and lower cost per test. 05 of 06 Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

  15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    The Next Move Should Strengthen Paid Growth and Revenue Durability

    This page lays out the strategic questions the analysis raises for the next twelve months.

    The data points to three practical priorities: building growth around collected revenue rather than booked volume, matching investment to unit economics, and testing whether growth is durable or episodic. We present these as observations from the analysis, not as directives, because the right sequencing depends on each company's own menu and payer mix. Boards and management teams can use this page as a starting checklist for the year ahead.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The Next Move Should Strengthen Paid Growth and Revenue Durability NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Build Around Collected Revenue Favor growth that comes with durable average selling price, repeat ordering and cash collections. Booked volume without collection quality carries less support. FOR MANAGEMENT Match Investment to Unit Economics Allocate sales, evidence and automation spending toward assays that can improve billable volume and cost per test together. FOR BOARDS Test the Durability of Growth Challenge whether growth rests on recurring surveillance, episodic screening or channel expansion. These models carry different revenue durability and capital needs.

  16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    Divider introducing the appendix covering comparables, methodology and sources.

    The final section carries the full comparables set, the transaction list, and the methodology behind every figure in the body of this report. It's the reference material for anyone who wants to trace a specific number back to its source.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

  17. 17
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    This appendix page lists all ten rated companies with their EV/Revenue and valuation tier.

    This table carries every rated company behind the charts in the body of the report, shaded by whether each sits above or below the 3.1x sector median. One company in the universe has no eligible EV/Revenue and is listed separately in the companion workbook. Use this page to check any individual company's position against the group it's compared to.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (3.1x); amber marks below · 10 rated companies; 1 not rated (no eligible EV/Revenue) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 10 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/Revenue (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥11.5x · median 16.6x · 3 companies GRAIL Inc. GRAL Esoteric reference laboratory testing $4.7B 20.7x 25% n/a n/a Natera, Inc. NTRA Esoteric reference laboratory testing $57.9B 16.6x 20% 2% 22 Personalis, Inc. PSNL Esoteric reference laboratory testing $1.5B 13.7x 36% n/a n/a CORE — 0.9x–11.5x · median 3.1x · 4 companies Veracyte, Inc. VCYT Esoteric reference laboratory testing $3.2B 4.9x 11% 28% 39 GeneDx Holdings Corp. WGS Esoteric reference laboratory testing $2.5B 4.1x 24% n/a n/a Castle Biosciences, Inc. CSTL Esoteric reference laboratory testing $864M 2.1x 10% 5% 16 Fulgent Genetics, Inc. FLGT Esoteric reference laboratory testing $372M 1.0x 15% n/a n/a DISCOUNT — <0.9x · median 0.7x · 3 companies OraSure Technologies, Inc. OSUR Specimen collection and screening assay consumables $110M 0.8x 9% n/a n/a Prenetics Global Limited PRE Adjacent: at-home sample collection and self-test kits $278M 0.7x 82% n/a n/a Myriad Genetics, Inc. MYGN Esoteric reference laboratory testing $487M 0.6x 6% 5% 11

  18. 18
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 1)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    This appendix page lists all nine precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first.

    This is the complete list of the nine transactions with disclosed terms out of the twenty-eight recorded in the underlying set, ordered from most to least recent. Deal multiples are LTM at announcement and sit on a different basis than the CY2027E public multiples used elsewhere, so we don't compare them directly. Transactions without a disclosed value or multiple are kept in the companion workbook rather than shown here.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 1) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 9 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (28 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 28 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 19 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Nov-2025 Abbott Laboratories → Exact Sciences Corporation $23.0B 7.5x 68.6x Abbott Laboratories and Exact Sciences Corporation represent a large strategic combination in genetic and screening services. May-2022 Artisan Acquisition Corp. → Prenetics Group Limited $1.2B 4.0x n/a Artisan Acquisition Corp. combined with Prenetics Group Limited through a completed transaction. Jan-2022 Sema4 Holdings Corp. → GeneDx, Inc. n/a 7.2x n/a The announced transaction between Sema4 Holdings Corp. and GeneDx, Inc. was recorded at 7.2x EV / Revenue. Feb-2021 VG Acquisition Corp. → 23andMe, Inc. $3.4B n/a n/a VG Acquisition Corp. and 23andMe, Inc. illustrate capital-markets interest in consumer genetics. Sep-2020 Illumina, Inc. → GRAIL, Inc. $936M n/a n/a Illumina, Inc. completed its transaction involving GRAIL, Inc. at a recorded value of $936M. Aug-2019 Exact → Genomic Health, Inc. n/a 5.6x n/a The announced transaction between Exact and Genomic Health, Inc. was recorded at 5.6x EV / Revenue. May-2011 Exact Sciences Corp. → Genomic Health, Inc. n/a 6.1x n/a The announced transaction involving Exact Sciences Corp. and Genomic Health, Inc. was recorded at 6.1x EV / Revenue. n/a n/a → Guardant Health, Inc. n/a 11.1x n/a The announced entry for Guardant Health, Inc. was recorded at 11.1x EV / Revenue. n/a n/a → Natera, Inc. n/a 12.0x n/a The announced entry for Natera, Inc. was recorded at 12.0x EV / Revenue.

  19. 19
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    This appendix page explains the data sources, assumptions and exclusions used in this analysis.

    This page sets out the sources behind every figure in the deck, the valuation basis we applied, and the criteria that excluded a figure or a company from the analysis. Each chart traces back to market data, consensus estimates or a company filing, and we've noted wherever a multiple failed our plausibility checks and was left out. We built it this way so any figure in this report can be checked against its original source.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-28 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 19 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (10 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Genetic and Screening Services and it clears the coverage gate with 10 of 11 companies (91%). EV / EBITDA, P / E are carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because forward EBITDA is reported for 4 of 11 companies. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 55 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 405 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (404) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

  20. 20

    The Higher Valuation Sits with Growth That Appears Durable and Collectible.

    Closing page restating that the higher valuation sits with growth that appears durable and collectible.

    The through-line of this report is simple: the higher valuation sits with growth that appears durable and collectible, not just growth on its own. The companion tables alongside this deck carry the full universe, the exclusion list and the complete source index for anyone who wants to trace a number further.

    Everything on this page

    The Higher Valuation Sits with Growth That Appears Durable and Collectible. NeuraCap AI — Genetic and Screening Services Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Genetic and Screening Services Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 20

Sources and methodology

This report covers Genetic and Screening Services (Health Care › Health Care Equipment and Services › Genetic and Screening Services) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 11 listed companies whose core business is Genetic and Screening Services according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Celcuity Inc. (CELC), Castle Biosciences, Inc. (CSTL), Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (FLGT), GRAIL Inc. (GRAL), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Natera, Inc. (NTRA), OraSure Technologies, Inc. (OSUR), Prenetics Global Limited (PRE), Personalis, Inc. (PSNL), Veracyte, Inc. (VCYT), GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS). The market map groups them by business vertical — Esoteric reference laboratory testing: 8 companies (NTRA, GRAL, VCYT, WGS, PSNL, CSTL, MYGN, FLGT); Adjacent models: 3 companies (CELC, PRE, OSUR). 10 of the 11 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

Scope and company universe

This report covers Genetic and Screening Services (Health Care › Health Care Equipment and Services › Genetic and Screening Services) with market data and consensus estimates as of September 28, 2026. The company universe is the 11 listed companies whose core business is Genetic and Screening Services according to NeuraCap's industry classification of each company's reported business segments (a company is included only when this industry is central to what it does, not merely adjacent to it). Companies in the set: Celcuity Inc. (CELC), Castle Biosciences, Inc. (CSTL), Fulgent Genetics, Inc. (FLGT), GRAIL Inc. (GRAL), Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN), Natera, Inc. (NTRA), OraSure Technologies, Inc. (OSUR), Prenetics Global Limited (PRE), Personalis, Inc. (PSNL), Veracyte, Inc. (VCYT), GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS). The market map groups them by business vertical — Esoteric reference laboratory testing: 8 companies (NTRA, GRAL, VCYT, WGS, PSNL, CSTL, MYGN, FLGT); Adjacent models: 3 companies (CELC, PRE, OSUR). 10 of the 11 companies carry a valid multiple on the primary valuation basis and form the rated set behind every cohort statistic; the others are shown but do not enter the statistics.

What was excluded and why

55 records failed a validation gate and never feed a statistic in this report (51 excluded from aggregate; 4 quarantined). Each exclusion, with its reason: CELC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CELC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CELC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CELC — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CSTL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CSTL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CSTL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · CSTL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · FLGT — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Implied EBITDA margin -217.8% outside the plausible band [-100%, 80%] (effect: quarantined) · GRAL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Implied EBITDA margin -197.1% outside the plausible band [-100%, 80%] (effect: quarantined) · GRAL — EBITDA is non-positive; EV/EBITDA is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Implied EBITDA margin -154.1% outside the plausible band [-100%, 80%] (effect: quarantined) · GRAL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · GRAL — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · MYGN — Non-positive EPS; P/E is n/m (effect: excluded from aggregate) · further items are listed in the companion tables.

Primary valuation basis and how it was chosen

Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (10 of 11 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Genetic and Screening Services and it clears the coverage gate with 10 of 11 companies (91%). EV / EBITDA, P / E are carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because forward EBITDA is reported for 4 of 11 companies. The basis is selected in two steps: the industry's customary valuation conventions set the order of preference, and each convention is then tested for coverage — the share of companies with a valid, plausibility-checked multiple on the chosen period. A convention is used only when enough companies carry it; the best-covered convention is used, and disclosed, when none clears the threshold. Coverage measured for this report — EV / EBITDA: 4 of 11 companies; EV / rEVenue: 10 of 11 companies; P/E: 2 of 11 companies. 3 companies show a non-meaningful EV / EBITDA denominator and are excluded from that statistic. 9 companies show a non-meaningful P / E denominator and are excluded from that statistic.

How the multiples and statistics are computed

Enterprise value (EV) is market capitalisation at the as-of date plus total debt minus cash and equivalents from the latest reported balance sheet, reconciled against the platform's stored value and disclosed where the two differ. Forward multiples divide EV (or the share price for P/E) by the consensus estimate for the stated calendar period; trailing multiples use the last twelve months of reported figures from SEC filings. A multiple with a negative or immaterial denominator is treated as not meaningful and excluded from every statistic. Cohort statistics are medians and quartiles over the rated set only; a group median with fewer than three observations is shown as the single company's figure and labelled as such. Valuation tiers cut the rated set at its quartiles (tiers cut at the rated set's quartiles: Premium ≥11.5x, Core 0.9x–11.5x, Discount <0.9x — NeuraCap groupings). Revenue growth compares consecutive calendar-year consensus revenue; EBITDA margin divides consensus EBITDA by consensus revenue for the same period. Figures shown in this report and the calculation behind each: 3.1x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) (10 rated companies) · 16.6x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Premium tier (n=3) · 3.1x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Core tier (n=4) · 0.7x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) within Discount tier (n=3) · 13.7x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | growth ≥ 18% (n=5) · 1.0x = median(ev_revenue CY2027E) | growth < 18% (n=5) · 19% = median Rule of 40 score (revenue growth + EBITDA margin) (n=4)

Precedent transactions: what is in the record and why

The precedent record holds the M&A transactions in Genetic and Screening Services recorded from SEC filings (8-K announcements and the documents they reference), newest first, with each value and multiple linked to the exact passage in the filing that states it. 28 transactions were recorded for this industry; 9 are shown. 19 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted because they say nothing about price; they remain in the companion workbook. Deal multiples are enterprise value over the target's last-twelve-month revenue or EBITDA at announcement, as disclosed; they are not restated to the public basis and no spread to the public multiples is claimed. Before a transaction reaches the record it passes a screen for mirrored or duplicate filings of the same deal, for divestitures where the filer is the seller rather than the buyer, for carve-outs recorded under the parent's name, and for values whose citation describes something other than the price paid (a debt raise, a termination fee); such records are corrected or excluded and the correction is noted. Data-quality notes on this record: 18 × deal value unit unresolved; 8 × no evidence record; 1 × duplicate precedent id; 1 × divestiture roles reassigned. Case studies lead with the 3 richest stories — disclosed value, a readable multiple, newest first.

Sources

Company financials and transaction terms come from the companies' own SEC filings on EDGAR (10-K, 10-Q and 8-K documents), linked from each figure in the report. Forward figures are analyst consensus estimates for the calendar periods shown. Share prices and market capitalisations are market data as of September 28, 2026. Treasury yields are published by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. 409 source documents stand behind this report; by publisher domain: sec.gov, home.treasury.gov (1). Every figure on every page is traceable to one of these records; nothing in the report is derived from outside data.

Interpretation and important notice

Tier labels, situation maps, the agenda and the implications pages are NeuraCap analytical views drawn from the recorded evidence and are labelled as such. The report is informational: it is not investment advice, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, not an opinion of value and not an offer of any kind. Readers should perform their own diligence before acting on anything described here.

This report is published for information only. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, an offer or solicitation, an appraisal or a fairness opinion, and no fiduciary relationship is created by reading it. Multiples that fail NeuraCap’s plausibility gates are excluded and never plotted. See the full methodology and the disclaimer.

More coverage in Health Care

Want this analysis for a company in Genetic and Screening Services?

Company valuation reports run the same method against a single business — public or private.

Get your reportTalk to advisory