For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for QIAGEN N.V. (QGEN) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Low · Gem Score -18 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 20 · Value -49 · Sentiment 9 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $40.33 vs $42.33 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
QIAGEN N.V.
QGEN NYSEQIAGEN N.V. is a Netherlands-based holding company and the leading global provider of Sample to Insight solutions that transform biological samples into valuable molecular insights. Founded in Germany in 1984, it specializes in technologies for isolating and processing DNA, RNA, and proteins from blood, tissue, and other materials, alongside assay technologies, bioinformatics software, and automation workflows for analysis. The company serves over 500,000 customers worldwide across molecular diagnostics for human healthcare, applied testing in forensics, veterinary, and food safety, pharmaceutical and biotech R&D, and academic life sciences research. With more than 500 core products including disposable kits, automated workstations, and testing agents, QIAGEN operates in over 130 countries, with key locations in Venlo, Netherlands; Hilden, Germany; and regional hubs in the US, China, and Singapore. Employing thousands globally and led by CEO Thierry Bernard, QIAGEN plays a pivotal role in advancing scientific discovery, disease diagnosis, and personalized medicine through innovative molecular tools. Its extensive acquisition history, including companies like Digene, Cellestis, and Verogen, has expanded its capabilities in diagnostics and bioinformatics. QIAGEN N.V. significantly contributes to the life sciences and healthcare sectors by enabling faster, more reliable molecular analysis.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
QIAGEN N.V. is a foreign private issuer — it reports to the U.S. SEC once a year (on Form 20-F or 40-F) rather than filing the quarterly statements (10-Q) that U.S.-domiciled companies must submit. Our financial statements are read directly from SEC filings, so for this company only annual figures exist at the source.
This is a property of how the company files, not missing or broken data — its filing history shows 16 annual reports, the latest filed 2026-03-20, and no quarterly filings . The company may still publish quarterly results on its own investor-relations site.
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 1.94
Total Equity: $3.78B
Shares: 218,880,000
Total Debt: $1.65B
Cash: $839.01M
EBITDA: $659.60M
Total Debt: $1.65B
Cash: $839.01M
Revenue: $2.09B
Revenue: $2.09B
Revenue: $2.09B
Total Equity: $3.78B
Tax Rate: 13.3%
Equity: $3.78B
Total Debt: $1.65B
Cash: $839.01M
Current Liabilities: $512.14M
Long-Term Debt: $1.65B
Total Debt: $1.65B
Total Equity: $3.78B
Shares: 218,880,000
Shares: 218,880,000
CapEx: -$201.05M
Shares: 218,880,000
Stock Price: $42.33
Net Income: $424.88M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:50pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.3B | $2.1B | $2.0B | $2.0B | $2.1B |
| Cost of Revenue | $800.8M | $757.0M | $731.6M | $1.0B | $790.5M |
| Gross Profit | $1.5B | $1.4B | $1.2B | $967.4M | $1.3B |
| Operating Expenses | $820.7M | $853.1M | $823.8M | $869.6M | $833.6M |
| Operating Income | $630.1M | $531.5M | $409.9M | $97.7M | $465.9M |
| Net Income | $512.6M | $423.2M | $341.3M | $83.6M | $424.9M |
| EBITDA | $845.0M | $739.9M | $615.3M | $301.0M | $659.6M |
| EPS | $2.25 | $1.86 | $1.50 | $0.38 | $1.96 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $2.21 | $1.84 | $1.48 | $0.37 | $1.94 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:51pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $880.5M | $730.7M | $668.1M | $663.6M | $839.0M |
| Total Current Assets | $2.1B | $2.4B | $2.1B | $2.0B | $2.0B |
| Total Assets | $6.1B | $6.3B | $6.1B | $5.7B | $6.3B |
| Current Liabilities | $1.5B | $974.5M | $1.1B | $543.6M | $512.1M |
| Long-Term Debt | $1.1B | $1.5B | $921.8M | $1.3B | $1.7B |
| Total Liabilities | $3.1B | $2.8B | $2.3B | $2.1B | $2.5B |
| Total Equity | $3.1B | $3.5B | $3.8B | $3.6B | $3.8B |
| Retained Earnings | $1.8B | $2.2B | $2.5B | $2.4B | $2.7B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:51pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $639.0M | $715.3M | $459.5M | $673.6M | $654.3M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$189.9M | -$129.2M | -$149.7M | -$167.2M | -$201.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | $449.1M | $586.0M | $309.7M | $506.4M | $453.3M |
| Acquisitions (net) | $0 | -$63.7M | -$149.5M | $0 | -$291.2M |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | -$41.3M | -$108.6M | -$400.0M | -$107.3M | $208.2M |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | $0 | $0 | -$54.2M |
| Stock Buybacks | -$100.0M | $0 | $0 | -$292.1M | -$280.1M |
| Net Change in Cash | $282.5M | -$149.8M | -$62.6M | -$4.5M | $175.5M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:50pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -4.9% | -8.2% | +0.7% | +5.7% |
| Gross Profit Growth | -4.6% | -10.9% | -21.6% | +34.3% |
| Operating Income Growth | -15.7% | -22.9% | -76.2% | +376.8% |
| Net Income Growth | -17.4% | -19.4% | -75.5% | +408.3% |
| EBITDA Growth | -12.4% | -16.8% | -51.1% | +119.2% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 4:52pm (20d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-07 | $0.35 | — | — | — |
| 2025-07-02 | $0.25 | — | — | — |
| 2024-01-30 | $1.36 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
Looking at the raw numbers first: QIAGEN's five-year revenue trajectory is actually flat-to-down — $2.25B (2021) → $2.14B → $1.97B → $1.98B → $2.09B (2025). The "3.1% CAGR" masks the reality that 2021 was a COVID-inflated peak and the business has spent four years clawing back. Meanwhile, the 2024 numbers are the anomaly the models are glossing over: operating income cratered to $97.7M (4.9% op margin) on effectively flat revenue, then bounced to $465.9M (22.3%) in 2025. That's not "margin normalization" — that's either a one-time restructuring/impairment charge in 2024 or a suspiciously convenient bounce-back. The "408% earnings YoY" and "21% FCF CAGR" are arithmetic artifacts of a depressed 2024 base, not evidence of a compounding machine. Strip 2024 out and 2025 op margin of 22.3% is actually below 2021's 28% and 2022's 24.8% — the trend is margin *erosion*, not expansion.
On valuation: 21.8x earnings and 14.5x EV/EBITDA for a business with 3% top-line growth, deteriorating margins vs. peak, and ROIC of 8.8% (below most estimates of cost of capital for a diagnostics tools company) is not obviously cheap. The synthesis calls $40.33 fair value against $42.33 spot — a rounding error of a "fair" verdict. I'd push back: if I normalize 2024 out and use a through-cycle ~20% op margin on $2.1B revenue, that's ~$420M operating income, ~$340M NI, giving ~26x on normalized earnings. The FCF story is better ($453M FCF, ~5.2% yield) but capex at $201M vs. depreciation suggests underlying capital intensity that the "consumables compounder" narrative underweights. EV/EBITDA of 14.5x is roughly in line with Thermo/Danaher but those businesses are actually growing 5-8% organically with better ROIC.
The contrarian short case the models are underplaying: QIAGEN has been a chronic underperformer in the tools space for a decade — Thermo tried to buy them at $52/share in 2020 and walked away; the stock is now $42, five years later, having generated essentially zero shareholder returns while the sector compounded. Insider activity isn't shown, but the pattern of a business that couldn't get acquired at a premium and can't organically grow past its COVID peak deserves more skepticism than the "steady compounder" narrative allows. The pre-flight note about "significant skepticism about sustainable margin power" is the right instinct; the synthesis then ignores it. The bull case requires believing 2025's 22% op margin holds — but the five-year trend from 28% → 25% → (excluding 2024) → 22% argues the opposite direction.
Where I land: I partially agree with the fair-value verdict but for different reasons — the synthesis treats this as "correctly priced quality compounder," while I read it as "fully priced no-growth business where the composite happens to land near spot by accident." The models are internally inconsistent: pre-flight flags low-single-digit growth and margin skepticism, momentum layer celebrates 408% earnings growth (mathematical noise), and narrative calls it "durable steady-compounder" — these can't all be right. I'd anchor fair value closer to $36-38 using normalized ~20% op margins, mid-single-digit growth, and a 17-18x P/E appropriate for a low-ROIC mature business, meaning modest downside from $42.33. The FCF yield offers some floor. Not a short (no catalyst, decent balance sheet with $839M cash vs $1.65B debt, 3.9x current ratio), but definitely not the "starter position" bulls would want. The real question — dependent on whether 2024's margin collapse was truly one-time (measured by 2026 op margin holding above 20%) or structural — won't be resolved until the next two prints. Until then, holders get a 1.3% dividend and hope for M&A optionality that already failed once.
GPT Reading
What jumps out first is how distorted 2024 makes the trend look, and why a purely rules-based read can miss the real earning power here. On the surface, QIAGEN looks like a low-growth diagnostics/tools business: revenue went from $2.25B in 2021 to $2.14B in 2022, $1.97B in 2023, $1.98B in 2024, then back up to $2.09B in 2025. That is hardly a clean compounding arc. But the 2024 income statement is the outlier that matters: gross profit collapsed to $967M from $1.23B in 2023 and then rebounded to $1.30B in 2025; operating income fell to just $97.7M in 2024 before snapping back to $465.9M in 2025; net income likewise cratered to $83.6M then recovered to $424.9M. If I normalize around 2023 and 2025 rather than treating 2024 as the new base, this looks less like a structurally impaired franchise and more like a good business that took a temporary profitability hit. A 62.2% gross margin, 22.3% operating margin, and 20.3% net margin in 2025 are still strong for a mature diagnostics platform.
Cash flow supports that read better than GAAP earnings alone. On $2.09B of revenue, QIAGEN produced $654M of operating cash flow and $453M of free cash flow even after a hefty $201M of capex. That is a 21.7% OCF margin and 21.7% gross-to-FCF conversion? No — more importantly, it is an FCF margin of about 21.7%? Actually $453.3M on $2.09B is roughly 21.7%, which is excellent for a business the market is valuing at $8.73B. At the current price, the equity trades at about 19x trailing free cash flow, while the stated P/E is 21.8x and EV/EBITDA 14.5x. For a company with net debt of roughly $811M ($1.65B debt less $839M cash), a current ratio near 3.9, and returns on equity/ROIC of 11.3%/8.8%, that is not a giveaway, but it is also not an aggressive multiple if 2025 margins are sustainable. The market seems to be pricing QIAGEN as a steady but uninspiring earner, and that is mostly right — but it may be underappreciating how much of the 2024 weakness was non-run-rate versus structural.
The key issue is growth, not survival or balance-sheet risk. Revenue in 2025 is still below 2021 and 2022 levels, so this is not a hidden grower. A 3.1% revenue CAGR and 4.4x sales multiple are acceptable only because the margin structure remains robust and recurring economics appear solid. If revenue can merely grow mid-single digits off the $2.09B base while operating margin stays around the low-20s, the current valuation is fair to slightly cheap. Rough math: sustaining $425M+ of net income and $450M+ of FCF should justify something around the current price, and modest operating leverage could push fair value into the high $40s. I do not see a compelling case for a major rerating into premium life-science-tools territory, but I also do not think $42 fully reflects a business that has already demonstrated earnings power above 2025 levels in prior years and has now largely repaired the 2024 damage.
The strongest case against this view is straightforward: the company may simply be a no-growth asset with more fragile margins than the rebound suggests. Revenue has not meaningfully expanded in four years, and 2025 revenue of $2.09B is still 7% below 2021. If 2024 was not just noise but evidence of competitive pressure, mix deterioration, or inability to absorb fixed costs when volumes soften, then the right multiple is not 22x earnings but something closer to a mid-teens multiple on normalized earnings. The 2025 recovery may flatter the picture because it compares against an abnormally weak 2024 base; “recent earnings growth” of 408% is mathematically true and economically misleading. On that bear view, EV/revenue of 4.6x and EV/EBITDA of 14.5x are already full for a business with flat multi-year sales and ROIC under 9%. I weigh that pushback less heavily because the cash generation remains too strong, liquidity is ample, leverage is moderate, and the 2025 margin rebound was too sharp to ignore. But it is the right skeptical frame: if growth stalls again, there is little multiple support.
What would change my mind is not a story but a few hard numbers. If the next annual read shows revenue slipping back below $2.0B or operating margin falling materially below 20% again, I would treat 2025 as a bounce rather than a reset and move to outright overvalued. Likewise, if free cash flow falls well below $400M despite stable revenue, that would imply the current 19x FCF framing is too generous. On the other hand, if QIAGEN can post another year of revenue growth into the $2.15B-$2.20B range while holding gross margin above 60% and operating income above $475M, then the stock deserves to trade closer to the upper $40s and the “mature but stagnant” label becomes too pessimistic.
Grok Reading
The numbers describe a post-COVID hangover that finally bottomed. Revenue slid from the $2.25B pandemic peak in 2021 to a $1.97–1.98B trough in 2023–24 before a modest 5.7% bounce to $2.09B in 2025—still 7% below the high-water mark four years later. The real drama sits in the P&L: 2024 crushed gross profit to $967M and operating income to $98M, then 2025 snapped both back to $1.30B and $466M respectively, restoring a 62% gross margin and 22% operating margin that look almost identical to the pre-blip run-rate. Net income’s 408% year-over-year surge is therefore almost entirely mean-reversion, not acceleration. Free cash flow of $453M on that revenue base (22% FCF margin) and a clean balance sheet—$839M cash against $1.65B debt, D/E 0.44, current ratio 3.9—confirm the franchise still converts earnings into cash with high fidelity. What it does not confirm is growth or capital efficiency: revenue CAGR of 3.1%, ROIC of 8.8%, and ROE of 11.3% are the signature of a mature tools business grinding along at mid-single-digit organic rates, not a compounding machine.
At $42.33 the market assigns a 21.8× P/E, 14.5× EV/EBITDA and 4.6× EV/sales multiple to that profile. Those are full prices for a low-single-digit grower whose returns on capital barely clear a reasonable WACC. The 2025 margin recovery removes the existential fear that 2024’s collapse was structural, yet it does not re-rate the growth algorithm. The installed-base consumables moat is real and explains the durable 60%+ gross margins, but competition from larger life-science platforms and the fading of pandemic testing volumes keep the top-line ceiling low. FCF yield of roughly 5.2% is respectable, yet with only 3% top-line momentum the equity is priced as if that cash stream is already fully discounted—exactly the “fair value, limited upside” conclusion the composite model reaches at $40.34.
The strongest counter-argument is that the market is still anchoring too heavily on the 2024 aberration and under-appreciating operating leverage now that volumes have stabilized. A skeptic of the fair-value call would note the 21% historical FCF CAGR, the fortress liquidity, and the fact that the stock sits 27% below its 52-week high despite earnings having fully normalized; they would argue 22× earnings for a sticky, high-margin diagnostics enabler with above-sector benchmarks is not demanding and that any sustained mid-single-digit growth plus modest multiple expansion could produce double-digit total returns. I weigh that less heavily because the multi-year revenue trajectory remains anemic, ROIC has not expanded with the margin recovery, and there is no evidence yet that the company can outgrow the broader tools peer set. The narrative layer itself concedes that fundamentals explain 95% of the price and that story premium is negligible—consistent with a fully valued mature earner rather than a mispriced compounder.
Two concrete developments would flip the stance: four consecutive quarters of organic revenue growth above 8% accompanied by ROIC pushing through 12%, which would justify a re-rating toward 25×+ earnings; or, on the downside, another gross-margin compression below 55% in 2026 that reveals the 2025 recovery was itself temporary.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Claude — Second Response · overvalued revised
VERDICT: Modestly overvalued — fair value $38-40 vs. $42.33 spot; FCF yield provides floor but 22x earnings on a 3% grower with sub-WACC ROIC has no rerating path absent organic growth acceleration that four years of data doesn't support.
Both colleagues converge with me on the core diagnosis — 2024 was an anomaly, 2025 is roughly the run-rate, and this is a mature 3% grower with strong FCF conversion. Where we differ is what multiple that profile deserves. GPT pushes to $46-48 by anchoring on the 19x FCF framing and calling the 2025 margin rebound "too sharp to ignore." Grok lands at $40-42 for essentially the reasons I did. I want to name what in GPT's argument I took seriously and where I still push back.
The FCF math genuinely moved me a notch. I under-weighted that $453M FCF on $8.73B market cap is a 5.2% yield with real cash conversion — capex of $201M vs D&A means the business isn't over-earning on paper. That's a legitimate floor I dismissed too quickly by fixating on the ROIC-below-WACC framing. Where GPT loses me: the leap from "2025 margins are sustainable" to "high $40s fair value" requires mid-single-digit revenue growth off a base that has printed 3.1% CAGR across four years including a COVID tailwind unwind. GPT's own bear paragraph concedes this, then discounts it because "cash generation remains too strong" — but strong cash generation at a no-growth asset is exactly what a 19x FCF multiple already pays for. You don't get to double-count it as a rerating catalyst.
Grok's framing is closer to mine but slightly more generous ($40-42 vs. my $36-38). Fair — I was probably too aggressive stripping to 17-18x P/E on a business with 62% gross margins and this balance sheet. Splitting the difference, I'll tighten my range to $38-40 rather than $36-38. That still leaves the stock modestly rich at $42.33, but it's a coin-flip rather than a clear pass. The core thesis holds: no growth catalyst, ROIC under WACC, failed 2020 takeout at $52 that nobody has re-approached, and a "recovery" that just gets margins back to a still-eroding trend line. I'm not moving to fairly-valued.
GPT — Second Response · fairly valued changed direction
VERDICT: Fairly valued around $40–42; upside above $44–45 needs clearer revenue growth, while sub-20% operating margins or revenue back below $2.0B would make shares look overvalued.
Claude’s pushback on *trend* rather than rebound moved me the most. I was too willing to treat 2024 as a pure aberration and 2025 as “normal,” but his point that 2025 margins are still below 2021/2022 levels matters: excluding the 2024 hole, this is not a business showing improving earning power, just recovered earning power on still-sub-peak revenue. Grok’s framing sharpened that further: 22x earnings, 14.5x EV/EBITDA, and a ~5.2% FCF yield are acceptable for a sticky franchise, but not obviously cheap for a company with 3%-ish growth and 8.8% ROIC. I still think the 2024 collapse should not be extrapolated, because the 2025 bounce in gross profit, operating income, and FCF is too broad-based to dismiss as cosmetic. But the burden is on the bull to show renewed growth, not merely repaired margins.
What failed to move me is the harsher version of the bear case that this deserves a clear mid-teens multiple today. The cash generation remains real: $453M FCF on $2.09B revenue with strong liquidity and only moderate net debt does create valuation support. And while Thermo’s failed 2020 deal is a useful historical caution, I don’t think “it was once not bought at $52” is a valuation argument by itself in 2026. Where I *do* revise is on upside: I no longer see $46–48 as the base case from current levels without clearer evidence of sustained top-line expansion. The more defensible read is that QIAGEN is a decent franchise whose recovery is already largely recognized, leaving shares around fair value to slightly rich unless revenue can push sustainably above $2.15B while keeping op margins above 20%.
Grok — Second Response · overvalued changed direction
VERDICT: Modestly overvalued at $42.33; fair value nearer $37–39 once 2024 noise and margin drift are normalized
Claude’s margin-trajectory critique is the piece I underweighted. Stripping the 2024 collapse, operating margin has drifted 28 % → 25 % → 22 %; 2025’s 22.3 % is therefore not a clean “reset to run-rate” but the latest step in gradual erosion. That reframes the 21.8× trailing P/E as closer to 25–26× on a through-cycle 20 % margin, which is full for 3 % top-line growth and sub-9 % ROIC. GPT’s cash-flow defense ($453 M FCF, ~19×) correctly supplies a floor and shows the franchise still converts, yet it does not offset the multi-year revenue ceiling still 7 % below the 2021 peak or the capital intensity implied by $201 M capex. The failed Thermo bid and zero shareholder return since further corroborate that the market has already paid for “quality compounder” optionality that never arrived.
I therefore shift from “fully priced quality” to “fully priced, low-growth asset with modest downside.” Fair value sits nearer $37–39 than my original $40–42 band; $42.33 already embeds the optimistic assumption that 2025 margins hold without further erosion. No short catalyst exists—the balance sheet and FCF yield prevent that—but the equity is no longer a hold-and-collect story either.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
QIAGEN is a mature diagnostics/life-science tools business generating dependable free cash flow (453M in 2025, 506M in 2024, 586M in 2022) on roughly 2B of revenue. Earnings quality is genuinely clean: OCF/NI at 2.78x, accruals -4.5% of assets, Beneish M -2.62, Altman Z 3.57 in the safe zone. Capital allocation is shareholder-friendly - diluted share count fell from 232M (2021) to 218.9M (2025), a -1.5% CAGR, with buybacks running 293% of SBC and SBC only 2.4% of revenue. That is discipline you rarely see.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- What drove the 2024 gross-margin drop to 48.9% and operating margin to 4.9% - impairment, restructuring, or genuine cost issue?
- Composition of the 555M net debt position - maturity ladder and any convertible features
- Organic vs FX-adjusted revenue trajectory 2021-2025 to see if stagnation is real or currency-driven
- Segment mix (Sample tech vs QuantiFERON vs QIAcuity) and customer concentration
- Whether the 2025 margin rebound is sustainable or benefited from prior-year base effects
The composite fair value of $40.33 and signal-adjusted $40.34 sit about 5% below the $42.33 price, implying mild overvaluation rather than opportunity. The methods span a wide range: DCF at $38.11 and EPV floor at $18.43 both say the price is full to rich, while the anchored P/E at $66.65 is the outlier - and given flatlined revenue and 2024's operating margin collapse to 4.9%, an anchored P/E built on normalized earnings is doing a lot of heavy lifting and should be discounted. Weighting the more grounded DCF and cash-flow-based methods, deserved value clusters in the high-30s to low-40s. The Solid quality grade (clean earnings, disciplined buybacks) supports paying near fair value but does not earn a premium beyond it. Bull thesis of consumables moat and steady compounding appears already priced in; bear points on stalled growth and competitive pressure from Illumina and Thermo are real risks the current multiple does not adequately discount. Margin of safety is essentially zero - roughly a 5% overpay against a business whose top line is lower than four years ago. This is the textbook 'known steady compounder the market has correctly priced' setup.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Nature of the 2024 margin collapse - one-time charge vs structural cost creep
- Organic revenue growth guidance and any color on sequencing/QuantiFERON share loss
- Buyback pace and remaining authorization vs share count trajectory
- Segment mix shift toward higher-margin consumables
QIAGEN is the textbook 'nothing story' stock right now. The narrative is a steady-compounder at minimal intensity with low cult coefficient, meaning there is no active bull mania to fade and no bear thesis actively de-rating the name. With beta 0.64 in a mildly constructive but nascent-neutral tape (regime score +22, VIX 16), the market's push on this name is muted by design - defensive diagnostics with recurring consumables revenue is exactly the profile that shrugs off broad tape wobbles. The 10y at 4.68% and market PE 26.9 create a mild headwind for all equities, but a low-beta healthcare tools name absorbs that far better than high-multiple growth cohorts. On the narrative side, the durable-but-quiet story provides a soft floor: no one is chasing it, but no one is dumping it either. Fundamentals account for ~95% of the price per the read, so there is very little narrative premium at risk of unwinding. Momentum is quietly positive (3-year improvement, healthy cash generation trajectory), which is the kind of drip-tailwind that low-intensity compounders live on. Net: a modest, non-decisive tailwind from durability and low macro sensitivity, offset by the absence of any catalyst or story to attract fresh flows. Balanced with a very slight upward lean.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Any M&A chatter or strategic review headlines - QGEN has a history of activist/takeover speculation that can rapidly shift the narrative from dull to event-driven
- Illumina or Thermo competitive moves in sample-prep / NGS consumables that could crack the moat narrative
- Sector rotation into defensive healthcare if the tape tilts risk-off - would asymmetrically favor this low-beta name
- Analyst target revisions clustering post next print - currently the story is too quiet to have divergence signal
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Aug 5, 2026, QGEN was $42.33. We expect it to be $40.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $34.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 5, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.