Oncology Therapeutics Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 22

←→Full screen

HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › ONCOLOGY THERAPEUTICS

Oncology Therapeutics: Promise and Proof Split Value

The report shows how development stage, franchise durability and clinical evidence shape market positioning.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

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

Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 22 · HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › ONCOLOGY THERAPEUTICS

Next →

What each page shows

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

1. 01

   HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › ONCOLOGY THERAPEUTICS

   Cover page introducing the Oncology Therapeutics sector outlook dated September 28, 2026.

   We open with the core finding: Oncology Therapeutics splits between scaled franchises and clinical-stage promise. This sets up the valuation and transaction evidence that follows, so clients know what to expect from every page ahead.

   Everything on this page

   HEALTH CARE › PHARMACEUTICALS, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND LIFE SCIENCES › ONCOLOGY THERAPEUTICS Oncology Therapeutics: Promise and Proof Split Value The report shows how development stage, franchise durability and clinical evidence shape market positioning. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis EV / Revenue (CY2027E) Oncology Therapeutics 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 appendix.

   The report runs five sections plus an appendix, starting with the bottom line so a client who reads only one page still gets the full story. We then move through the landscape, valuation and situations, precedent transactions, and strategic implications in sequence. This structure lets us walk the argument in the order decisions actually get made, so nothing feels buried in the appendix.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Oncology Value Splits Between Scaled Franchises and Clinical-Stage Promise 02 The Landscape Clinical-Stage Developers Define the Field, While Scaled Franchises Provide the Commercial Benchmark 03 Valuation & Situations Forward Revenue Pricing Rewards More than Near-Term Growth 04 Precedent Transactions Precedent Transactions Show Buyers Committing Across Development Stages 05 Strategic Implications Clinical Evidence, Capital Discipline and Commercial Durability Define the Next Value Step 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Oncology Therapeutics Splits Between Scaled Franchises and Clinical-Stage Promise

   Summarizes the core finding that Oncology Therapeutics splits between scaled franchises and clinical-stage promise, based on EV/Revenue (CY2027E).

   This page carries the entire argument: the sector splits between scaled commercial franchises and clinical-stage promise, priced primarily on EV/Revenue (CY2027E). We use this basis because far more rated companies carry an eligible estimate on it than on EBITDA. The premium end trades at 19.5x versus 1.7x at the discount end, and that spread tracks with development maturity and franchise durability rather than growth rate alone. So the conversation for any owner or acquirer starts with where an asset sits on that maturity curve, not with its growth number.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Oncology Therapeutics Splits Between Scaled Franchises and Clinical-Stage Promise 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 (31 of 54 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (33 of 54 companies), so this report follows it. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Forward Revenue Is the Practical Common Lens 31 of 54 companies carry a CY2027E EV / Revenue estimate, while only 6 of 54 have meaningful EBITDA. A forward multiple already credits forecast growth, so a premium that survives this lens signals expected durability. 2 Clinical-Stage Value Sits Alongside Evidence and Optionality Clinical-stage oncology drug developers represent 51 of 54 companies and 94% of the set. Their standing sits alongside registrational clarity, survival evidence, biomarker selection and cash runway to the next pivotal readout. 3 The Two Ends Carry Very Different Expectations The premium end is valued at 19.5x, compared with 1.7x at the discount end. That spread is associated with differences in development maturity, franchise durability and confidence in forecast revenue. 4 Faster Forecast Growth Does Not Consistently Sit with Higher Pricing Companies above the 15% growth split are valued at 3.2x, compared with 4.2x below it, across 12 names in each group. The observed pattern leaves clinical quality, timing and revenue durability central to the valuation discussion. 3.5x Sector median EV/Revenue CY2027E consensus · EV/Revenue is the lens because practitioners price this growth set on revenue and 3 of 54 names are… 19.5x Premium end EV/Revenue vs 1.7x at the discount end top quartile (n=8) against bottom quartile (n=8) on EV/Revenue — the spread the report explains 28 Transactions with disclosed terms 86 recorded in this tier · 3 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   Divider introducing Section 02 on how development stage defines the oncology market map.

   Section two lays out where clinical-stage developers and scaled franchises sit relative to one another. Development stage changes the evidence, the capital needs and the valuation framework that applies, so we use this section to set the terms before comparing multiples.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Clinical-Stage Developers Define the Field, While Scaled Franchises Provide the Commercial Benchmark Development stage changes the evidence, capital and valuation framework that matters. 02 of 06 Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   Clinical-Stage Developers Dominate the Field, but Commercial Models Anchor the Benchmarks

   Groups approved companies by business segment and shows median EV/Revenue (CY2027E) per group.

   Across the approved universe, we group companies by business segment and show the median EV/Revenue (CY2027E) for each. Clinical-stage developers dominate by count, but the commercial-model names anchor the benchmarks the market actually prices against. That contrast matters because it tells us which multiples are load-bearing for the sector and which reflect a much thinner comparable set.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP Clinical-Stage Developers Dominate the Field, but Commercial Models Anchor the Benchmarks 54 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 CLINICAL-STAGE ONCOLOGY DRUG DEVELOPERS 51 cos median 3.9x Revolution (RVMD) BeOne Medicines (ONC) Incyte (INCY) Exelixis (EXEL) Cogent Biosciences (COGT) Celcuity (CELC) Relay Therapeutics (RLAY) Tango Therapeutics (TNGX) IDEAYA Biosciences (IDYA) Zai Lab Limited (ZLAB) Enliven (ELVN) Immunome (IMNM) Nanobiotix S.A. (NBTX) Syndax (SNDX) Inhibrx (INBX) +36 more Pipeline value depends on probability of success, registrational design and runway to the next clinical catalyst. LARGE-CAP DIVERSIFIED ONCOLOGY FRANCHISES 2 cos median 5.1x Amgen (AMGN) Bristol-Myers (BMY) Scaled portfolios provide a reference for durable revenue, profitability and reinvestment capacity. COMMERCIAL-STAGE SPECIALTY ONCOLOGY AND SUPPORTIVE CARE 1 cos 1.6x · 1 rated HUTCHMED (China) (HCM) Commercial execution, guideline positioning and franchise durability shape the relevant revenue benchmark.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   What the Market Underwrites Tracks with Development Stage

   Shows how EV/Revenue (CY2027E) medians vary by segment across the approved universe.

   This segment view confirms that what the market underwrites tracks closely with development stage. Names further along the clinical and commercial path carry different median multiples than earlier-stage peers, and we lay out what each segment does and why it matters. So the valuation conversation naturally splits by stage, not by a single sector-wide number.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE What the Market Underwrites Tracks with Development Stage 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. Oncology Therapeutics 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 Clinical-stage oncology drug developers 51 94% 3.9x Revolution Medicines, Inc. (RVMD) · BeOne Medicines AG (ONC) · +49 more Evidence carries the value. These businesses are primarily assessed asset by asset, with weight placed on probability of success, registrational clarity, survival benefit and the funding path to the next readout. Large-cap diversified oncology franchises 2 4% 5.1x Amgen Inc. (AMGN) · Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) Scale supports durability. Established portfolios combine marketed revenue, operating cash flow and multiple clinical programs, allowing investors to assess franchise resilience alongside pipeline renewal. Commercial-stage specialty oncology and supportive care 1 2% 1.6x n=1 HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) Execution follows approval. Value depends on uptake, guideline inclusion, pathway positioning and the cost required to establish durable share after regulatory clearance.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   Divider introducing Section 03 on public market valuation and what drives it.

   Section three turns to the valuation range itself and what explains it. The spread points to real differences in clinical maturity, franchise durability and estimate confidence, which is exactly what we unpack next.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS Forward Revenue Pricing Rewards More than Near-Term Growth The range points to meaningful differences in clinical maturity, franchise durability and estimate confidence. 03 of 06 Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   The Valuation Range Separates Durable Expectations from Execution Risk

   Displays the highest and lowest EV/Revenue (CY2027E) multiples among the rated companies against a sector median of 3.5x.

   Among the rated companies, the highest multiples reach 19.5x and the lowest sit at 1.7x, against a sector median of 3.5x. That range separates durable expectations from execution risk more than it separates fast growth from slow. We show the top and bottom tiers here, with the full rated set in the appendix, so clients can see exactly where any name of interest falls.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION The Valuation Range Separates Durable Expectations from Execution Risk EV / Revenue (CY2027E) · the 12 highest and 12 lowest of 31 rated companies · sector median 3.5x · 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 (31 of 54 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (33 of 54 companies), so this report follows it. The 7 mid-cohort names cluster near the median; the full set is in the appendix and companion tables. 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM END — FORWARD REVENUE EXPECTATIONS · median 19.5x DISCOUNT END — EXECUTION AND DURABILITY QUESTIONS · median 1.7x Sector median 3.5x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The top carries conviction. The premium end is valued at 19.5x on CY2027E revenue, indicating high expectations for future revenue durability despite the forward lens already crediting forecast growth. The bottom carries questions. The discount end is valued at 1.7x, a level associated with greater uncertainty around commercial uptake, development outcomes or franchise duration. Clinical context still matters. Revenue multiples cannot capture differences in line of therapy, registrational design, biomarker selection or remaining exclusivity. Those attributes remain important when comparing names across the range.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   Forecast Growth Alone Does Not Separate Higher-Valued Oncology Companies

   Compares median EV/Revenue (CY2027E) between faster- and slower-growth cohorts split at the covered median.

   We split the rated names into faster- and slower-growth cohorts around the covered median and compare median multiples. The faster-growth group trades at 3.2x versus 4.2x for the slower group, so forecast growth alone does not explain who commands the premium. That finding pushes the driver conversation toward clinical quality and durability rather than growth headlines.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Forecast Growth Alone Does Not Separate Higher-Valued Oncology Companies 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=12; slower n=12; higher-margin n=0; lower-margin n=0). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 EV/Revenue, median per cohort · growth split at 15% · EBITDA-margin split at n/a Higher Forecast Growth Sits with the Lower Observed Multiple Across 12 companies above the 15% growth split, the valuation is 3.2x. The 12 companies below the split are valued at 4.2x, showing that growth and pricing do not move together consistently in this sample. Clinical Quality Changes the Meaning of Revenue A forecast backed by a clean registrational path, survival evidence and a biomarker-selected population carries a different risk profile from revenue dependent on an early program or uncertain uptake. Runway Affects the Path to the Next Catalyst Financing capacity matters when pivotal readouts, confirmatory work or launch investment sit beyond current resources. The strategic question is whether capital reaches the next evidence point without narrowing development options.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    Four Positions Reveal Where Expectations and Growth Diverge

    Maps rated companies on EV/Revenue versus the sector median against revenue growth versus the covered median to identify four situations.

    Plotting EV/Revenue against the 3.5x sector median and revenue growth against the 15% covered median produces four distinct situations rather than one continuous curve. These are observations on where expectations and growth diverge, not recommendations. For an owner or acquirer, the quadrant a company sits in frames a different set of questions to resolve.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP Four Positions Reveal Where Expectations and Growth Diverge Cut on EV / Revenue vs the sector median (3.5x) (rows) and revenue growth vs the covered median (15%) (columns) · 7 rated names without the second measure are not mapped · 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Higher Value, Higher Growth Above-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 4 names BeOne Medicines AG (ONC) · Zai Lab Limited (ZLAB) · Nuvation Bio Inc. (NUVB) · +1 more Four companies combine above-midpoint valuation with above-midpoint revenue growth. Their next test is whether clinical progress and commercial execution can sustain those expectations. Higher Value, Lower Growth Above-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 7 names Amgen Inc. (AMGN) · Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) · Exelixis, Inc. (EXEL) · +4 more Seven companies carry above-midpoint valuation despite below-midpoint revenue growth. Franchise durability, pipeline optionality or confidence in future catalysts may sit alongside that positioning. Lower Value, Higher Growth Below-median multiple · above-median revenue growth 8 names Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (SNDX) · HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) · Geron Corporation (GERN) · +5 more Eight companies pair above-midpoint growth with below-midpoint valuation. The gap points to questions around revenue quality, clinical durability, capital needs or the credibility of the forecast. Lower Value, Lower Growth Below-median multiple · below-median revenue growth 5 names Incyte Corporation (INCY) · Immunocore Holdings plc (IMCR) · Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (PBYI) · +2 more Five companies sit below both midpoints. Strengthening clinical evidence, focusing capital and improving the path to durable revenue are the central operating considerations.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Three Paths Show up in the Set: Core Growth, Added Scale, and a Mix Tilted Toward What Buyers Pay up For

    Frames three strategic paths the situation data suggests: core growth, added scale, and a premium-priced mix.

    Three paths show up consistently in this data: doubling down on core growth, adding scale, or leaning into the mix that buyers already pay up for. We frame these as questions for an owner or acquirer to resolve, grounded in the cohort evidence shown earlier, not as a recommendation. So the next section on precedent transactions tests these paths against what buyers have actually paid.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Three Paths Show up in the Set: Core Growth, Added Scale, and a Mix Tilted Toward What Buyers Pay up For 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Concentrate Capital Around Decisive Evidence A focused path to a registrational study or pivotal readout can sharpen the value case while preserving resources for the programs with the clearest clinical and commercial role. What changes the answer: The answer changes when probability of success, enrollment timing or cash runway no longer supports the current program mix. Use Partnerships to Preserve Strategic Choice Territory rights, co-development structures and asset-level partnerships can fund development while retaining selected economics and reducing dependence on a single financing route. What changes the answer: The answer changes when external capital can reach a catalyst on better terms than funding the full program internally. Build Commercial Depth Around the Franchise For approved and near-approval assets, guideline positioning, diagnostic access and field execution can strengthen revenue durability beyond regulatory clearance. What changes the answer: The answer changes when uptake, pathway placement or launch cost becomes more important than the next regulatory milestone.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    Divider introducing Section 04 on precedent transactions across development stages.

    Section four turns from public pricing to what acquirers have actually paid. Buyers have committed capital across development stages, and strategic fit and asset maturity matter alongside the disclosed benchmark, which is what the transaction evidence shows next.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS Precedent Transactions Show Buyers Committing Across Development Stages Strategic fit and asset maturity matter alongside the disclosed transaction benchmark. 04 of 06 Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Nine Precedent Transactions Span Strategic Conviction and Stage-Specific Pricing

    Presents case studies on select precedent transactions with disclosed terms, drawn from the broader set of disclosed-terms deals.

    We walk through case studies drawn from the transactions with disclosed terms, using multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed. These illustrate the range of strategic conviction and stage-specific pricing buyers have shown, with the complete list available in the appendix. Because these deal multiples sit on a different basis than our CY2027E public comparables, we read them as a strategic corroboration rather than a direct valuation bridge.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Nine Precedent Transactions Span Strategic Conviction and Stage-Specific Pricing 3 of 28 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. 97 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; duplicate precedent id; no evidence record); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 58 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Mar-2023 $42.0B Pfizer Inc. acquires Seagen Inc. EV / LTM revenue 21.4x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests a strategic fit between an oncology asset and a buyer able to support further development. The logic rests on adding clinical optionality within an established operating structure. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The precedent is most useful as a strategic benchmark rather than a standalone public-market multiple. Its relevance depends on development stage, retained rights and the capital required to reach the next catalyst. May-2021 $3.6B Genscript Biotech Corporation acquires Legend Biotech Corp EV / LTM revenue 45.7x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests that clinical differentiation and portfolio fit can support buyer interest before a franchise reaches full commercial scale. Registrational clarity and development funding remain central to that reading. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The valuation should be read against the target's development stage and program rights. It represents a transaction benchmark rather than the top of the range for the broader public-company set. Apr-2022 $916M Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. acquires Antares Pharma, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 5.0x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The transaction suggests that a buyer saw value in combining the target's program with broader development capabilities. The strategic fit is clearest where capital and clinical infrastructure can carry the asset toward a pivotal milestone. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The precedent is relevant to companies with comparable clinical maturity and ownership rights. Public-company comparisons still require adjustment for forecast revenue, funding needs and remaining development risk.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    Divider introducing Section 05 on strategic implications for owners, management teams and boards.

    Section five turns the valuation and transaction evidence into strategic implications. Clinical evidence, capital discipline and commercial durability define the next value step, and management choices can strengthen positioning well before the market reaches a final view.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Clinical Evidence, Capital Discipline and Commercial Durability Define the Next Value Step Management choices can strengthen positioning well before the market reaches a final view. 05 of 06 Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    Evidence, Funding and Commercial Execution Show up Together at the Top of the Range

    Sets out the strategic questions for owners, management teams and boards for the next twelve months.

    Evidence, funding and commercial execution show up together at the top of the observed range, which is the central strategic takeaway. For owners, the priority is protecting the next value-defining milestone; for management teams, tying strategy to clinical differentiation; for boards, keeping multiple funding routes open. These are the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months, not a single prescribed path.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Evidence, Funding and Commercial Execution Show up Together at the Top of the Range 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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Protect the Next Value-Defining Milestone Capital allocation is most effective when runway reaches the next decisive clinical or commercial proof point without weakening the programs that create future optionality. FOR MANAGEMENT TEAMS Tie Strategy to Clinical Differentiation Program choices gain weight when they reinforce survival benefit, biomarker selection, combination potential and a clear place in the standard of care. FOR BOARDS Keep Multiple Funding Routes Open Internal development, partnerships and selective portfolio combinations offer different balances of capital, rights and execution risk. The right route depends on runway and the timing of the next catalyst.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    Divider introducing Section 06, the full comparables universe, methodology and sources.

    Section six is the reference section: the full comparables universe, the methodology behind every multiple, and the source for each underlying disclosure. We include it so any figure in the body can be traced back to its origin.

    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 Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

17. 17
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 2)

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

    Lists public comparables on EV/Revenue (CY2027E) grouped by valuation tier, part one of two.

    Here we list the rated companies grouped into valuation tiers against the 3.5x sector median, with tickers linked to their underlying source. This is the detail behind the tier commentary shown earlier in the report. Clients can use it to locate any specific name and confirm exactly where it sits in the range.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 2) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (3.5x); amber marks below · 31 rated companies; 23 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. 30 of 31 rated names shown here; the remaining 1 rows are in the companion workbook beside this deck. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Oncology Therapeutics 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 — ≥6.5x · median 19.5x · 8 companies Aura Biosciences, Inc. AURA Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $297M 60.3x -74% n/a n/a Olema Pharmaceuticals, Inc. OLMA Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $251M 30.6x n/a n/a n/a Nanobiotix S.A. NBTX Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $1.6B 24.9x n/a n/a n/a IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc. IDYA Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $2.7B 23.5x n/a n/a n/a Candel Therapeutics, Inc. CADL Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $674M 15.5x -53% n/a n/a ALX Oncology Holdings Inc. ALXO Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $60M 11.2x 16% n/a n/a Genelux Corporation GNLX Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $87M 11.1x n/a n/a n/a Amgen Inc. AMGN Large-cap diversified oncology franchises $271B 6.7x 4% 45% 48 CORE — 2.1x–6.5x · median 3.5x · 15 companies Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Inc. GLUE Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $360M 6.3x -13% n/a n/a Nuvation Bio Inc. NUVB Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $1.5B 5.3x 42% n/a n/a Immuneering Corporation IMRX Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $116M 5.1x 7% n/a n/a Ascentage Pharma Group International AAPG Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $1.4B 4.9x n/a n/a n/a Exelixis, Inc. EXEL Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $14.2B 4.9x 13% 43% 53 Zai Lab Limited ZLAB Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $2.4B 4.7x 21% n/a n/a BeOne Medicines AG ONC Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $34.7B 4.4x 16% 22% 40

18. 18
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (2 OF 2)

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

    Continues the public comparables list on EV/Revenue (CY2027E) grouped by valuation tier, part two of two.

    This page completes the comparables list started on the previous page, again grouped by valuation tier against the sector median. Together the two pages give the full rated set behind every multiple referenced earlier in the deck. Names without an eligible multiple are noted separately in the companion workbook.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (2 OF 2) Public Comparables on EV / Revenue (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a EV/Revenue above the sector median (3.5x); amber marks below · 31 rated companies; 23 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. 30 of 31 rated names shown here; the remaining 1 rows are in the companion workbook beside this deck. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Company Ticker Segment EV EV/Revenue (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 CORE — CONTINUED — 2.1x–6.5x · median 3.5x · 15 companies Bristol-Myers Squibb Company BMY Large-cap diversified oncology franchises $166B 3.5x -3% 38% 35 Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. SNDX Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $1.6B 3.4x 46% n/a n/a Incyte Corporation INCY Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $21.0B 3.4x 5% 14% 40 Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. FENC Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $338M 3.3x 42% n/a n/a Verastem, Inc. VSTM Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $577M 3.2x 56% n/a n/a Agenus Inc. AGEN Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $363M 2.6x -1% n/a n/a Immunocore Holdings plc IMCR Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $1.1B 2.4x 8% n/a 15 Innate Pharma S.A. IPHA Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $146M 2.4x 26% n/a n/a DISCOUNT — <2.1x · median 1.7x · 8 companies BridgeBio Oncology Therapeutics Inc. BBOT Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $56M 1.9x n/a n/a n/a Kura Oncology, Inc. KURA Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $385M 1.8x n/a n/a n/a Puma Biotechnology, Inc. PBYI Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $414M 1.8x 1% n/a n/a Geron Corporation GERN Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $612M 1.8x 45% n/a n/a HUTCHMED (China) Limited HCM Commercial-stage specialty oncology and supportive care $1.2B 1.6x 16% n/a n/a Black Diamond Therapeutics, Inc. BDTX Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $4M 1.6x -66% n/a n/a Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. KPTI Clinical-stage oncology drug developers $166M 0.8x 47% n/a n/a

19. 19
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    Lists precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, part one of two.

    This page lists transactions with disclosed terms in date order, with deal values linked to the underlying filing. Multiples shown are LTM at announcement, which is a different basis to our CY2027E public comparables, so we do not claim a direct spread between the two. This is the primary evidence behind the deal case studies presented earlier.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 28 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (86 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. 97 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; duplicate precedent id; no evidence record); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 58 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. 18 of 28 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Jun-2026 GSK plc → Nuvalent, Inc. $10.3B n/a n/a The transaction was recorded at $10.3B. Its size suggests substantial strategic conviction in the target's oncology assets and development path. Apr-2026 n/a → Geron Corporation n/a 1.3x n/a The announced transaction was valued at 1.3x revenue. The benchmark sits below the public-company middle of the range. Nov-2025 Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC → Cidara Therapeutics, Inc. $3.2B n/a n/a The announced transaction was recorded at $3.2B. It suggests that buyers can commit meaningful capital where an oncology asset complements an existing development portfolio. Jul-2025 Merck & Co., Inc. → Verona Pharma plc n/a 0.7x n/a The announced transaction was valued at 0.7x revenue. Stage, franchise mix and revenue durability remain important when comparing that figure with oncology peers. Feb-2025 Alumis Inc. → ACELYRIN, Inc. $235M n/a n/a The announced transaction was recorded at $235M. It suggests a route for combining development portfolios and focusing capital across selected programs. Aug-2024 Pharmacosmos A/S → G1 Therapeutics, Inc. n/a 3.4x n/a The announced transaction was valued at 3.4x revenue. The strategic fit points to the relevance of established commercial capabilities when buyers assess marketed oncology products. Feb-2024 XOMA Corporation → Kinnate Biopharma Inc. $55M n/a n/a The announced transaction was recorded at $55M. It illustrates how platform assets and remaining development options can support a transaction at a modest disclosed value. Nov-2023 AbbVie Inc. → ImmunoGen, Inc. n/a 9.9x n/a The announced transaction was valued at 9.9x revenue. The benchmark sits above the public-company middle of the range and indicates high expectations around the target franchise. Jun-2023 Coherus BioSciences, Inc. → Surface Oncology, Inc. $90M 3.0x n/a The completed transaction was recorded at $90M and 3.0x revenue. It shows how an oncology-focused buyer can add a clinical asset at a benchmark close to the public-company middle of the range.

20. 20
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    Continues the precedent transaction list with disclosed terms, newest first, part two of two.

    This page completes the precedent transaction list, again ordered newest first with deal values linked to source filings. Together the two pages give the full disclosed-terms set behind the case studies and the strategic reading earlier in the deck. Transactions without a disclosed value or multiple are kept in the companion workbook rather than listed here.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 28 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (86 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. 97 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; duplicate precedent id; no evidence record); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 58 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. 18 of 28 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 20 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters May-2023 Pyxis Oncology, Inc. → Apexigen, Inc. $11M n/a n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Mar-2023 Pfizer Inc. → Seagen Inc. $42.0B 21.4x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Feb-2023 MEI Pharma, Inc. → Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. $11M 4.2x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Oct-2022 PureTech Health plc → Nektar Therapeutics, Inc. $659M 6.9x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Jun-2022 Yumanity Therapeutics, Inc. → Kineta, Inc. $21M 4.3x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Apr-2022 GSK → Sierra Oncology, Inc. n/a 3.2x n/a Apr-2022 Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. → Antares Pharma, Inc. $916M 5.0x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Aug-2021 Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. → Trillium Therapeutics Inc. n/a 3.1x n/a Jun-2021 Elanco Animal Health Inc → Kindred Biosciences, Inc. $388M 8.8x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved.

21. 21
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    Explains the report's sources, assumptions and data-quality exclusions.

    This page documents how the report was built: the valuation basis, what was excluded and why, and where every underlying disclosure lives. Every figure in the report links back to its source record, or the appendix names the source directly. We include this so clients can independently verify any number before acting on it.

    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. Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 21 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: EV / Revenue on CY2027E consensus (31 of 54 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on EV / Revenue rather than EV / EBITDA; validated coverage supports the industry standard (33 of 54 companies), so this report follows it. EV / Revenue on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Oncology Therapeutics and it clears the coverage gate with 31 of 54 companies (57%). P / E is carried as a cross-check. A revenue lens is used rather than a profit multiple because the set is not consistently profitable on a forward basis (6 of 54 names with a meaningful EBITDA). DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 252 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 1186 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 (1185) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

22. 22

    The Observed Premium Sits with Durable Expectations, Clinical Clarity and Strategic Choice.

    Closing page restating that the observed premium sits with durable expectations, clinical clarity and strategic choice.

    We close on the finding that carries through every section: the observed premium sits with durable expectations, clinical clarity and strategic choice. The companion tables carry the full universe and source index for any figure a client wants to trace further.

    Everything on this page

    The Observed Premium Sits with Durable Expectations, Clinical Clarity and Strategic Choice. NeuraCap AI — Oncology Therapeutics Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Oncology Therapeutics Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 22

More coverage in Health Care

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Oncology Therapeutics Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Medical Imaging Equipment Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Neurology and CNS Therapeutics Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Neurology and CNS Therapeutics Sector Outlook — September 2026