For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Revolution Medicines Inc. (RVMD) — 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 2026-09-04): Designation Low · Gem Score -65 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality -60 · Value -69 · Sentiment 32 (timing only, not weighted)
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.
Revolution Medicines Inc.
RVMD NASDAQRevolution Medicines Inc. is a clinical-stage precision oncology company focused on developing targeted cancer therapies. The company concentrates on inhibiting difficult-to-drug molecular targets within key cell growth and survival pathways, with particular emphasis on the RAS and mTOR signaling pathways that are frequently altered in solid tumors. Its pipeline includes RMC-4630, a SHP2 inhibitor designed to disrupt signaling that supports tumor growth, as well as a portfolio of RAS(ON) inhibitors and programs targeting SOS1 and 4EBP1/mTORC1. These investigational therapies are being studied as both monotherapies and in combinations to address cancers driven by RAS and related pathway alterations. Revolution Medicines serves the biopharmaceutical and oncology treatment markets by discovering and advancing molecules intended for use in cancer care, typically in collaboration with healthcare providers and research centers. Founded in 2004 and headquartered in Redwood City, California, Revolution Medicines operates within the biotechnology sector, contributing to the development of next-generation targeted oncology drugs.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): -5.95
Total Equity: $1.63B
Shares: 190,129,154
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $383.75M
EBITDA: -$1.17B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $383.75M
Revenue: $0.00
Revenue: $0.00
Revenue: $0.00
Total Equity: $1.63B
Tax Rate: 0.0%
Equity: $1.63B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $383.75M
Current Liabilities: $290.42M
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $1.63B
Shares: 190,129,154
Shares: 190,129,154
CapEx: -$15.99M
Shares: 190,129,154
Stock Price: $216.27
Net Income: -$1.13B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 19, 2026 10:43pm (15d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $29.4M | $35.4M | $11.6M | $0 | $0 |
| Cost of Revenue | — | — | — | — | — |
| Gross Profit | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Expenses | $217.4M | $293.7M | $498.8M | $689.5M | $1.2B |
| Operating Income | -$188.0M | -$258.3M | -$487.2M | -$689.5M | -$1.2B |
| Net Income | -$187.1M | -$248.7M | -$436.4M | -$600.1M | -$1.1B |
| EBITDA | -$184.9M | -$254.3M | -$482.1M | -$683.3M | -$1.2B |
| EPS | $-2.57 | $-3.08 | $-3.86 | $-3.58 | $-5.95 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $-2.57 | $-3.08 | $-3.86 | $-3.58 | $-5.95 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 19, 2026 12:27pm (15d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $108.5M | $161.4M | $696.1M | $543.1M | $383.7M |
| Total Current Assets | $589.8M | $660.2M | $1.9B | $2.3B | $2.1B |
| Total Assets | $738.0M | $811.9M | $2.1B | $2.6B | $2.4B |
| Current Liabilities | $60.4M | $62.0M | $143.9M | $163.9M | $290.4M |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $135.4M | $126.7M | $235.5M | $293.1M | $723.2M |
| Total Equity | $602.6M | $685.2M | $1.8B | $2.3B | $1.6B |
| Retained Earnings | -$452.6M | -$701.3M | -$1.1B | -$1.7B | -$2.9B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 19, 2026 10:43pm (15d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | -$147.2M | -$224.4M | -$350.6M | -$557.4M | -$897.7M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$6.5M | -$10.8M | -$7.7M | -$10.3M | -$16.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | -$153.7M | -$235.2M | -$358.3M | -$567.7M | -$913.7M |
| Acquisitions (net) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $4.9M | $52.9M | $536.0M | -$152.4M | -$158.2M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 19, 2026 10:43pm (15d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +20.4% | -67.3% | -100.0% | — |
| Gross Profit Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Income Growth | -37.4% | -88.6% | -41.5% | -71.5% |
| Net Income Growth | -32.9% | -75.5% | -37.5% | -88.5% |
| EBITDA Growth | -37.5% | -89.6% | -41.7% | -71.9% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Not computed yetNarrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-19 23:34The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
The raw numbers here are stark and the models are directionally right, but I want to sharpen the framing. Revolution Medicines has zero product revenue — the $11.6M in 2023 and $35.4M in 2022 were collaboration payments that have now evaporated — and quarterly net losses have compounded from -$156M in Q3 2024 to -$644M in Q2 2026, a 4x acceleration in seven quarters. Full-year 2025 operating loss was -$1.18B against $383.7M cash on hand and -$897.7M operating cash flow. That is roughly a 5-month runway on the balance sheet as reported, which means either (a) the file is stale and a large raise has already occurred, (b) a raise is imminent, or (c) a Sanofi/Roche-style partnership is being negotiated right now. At $46.3B market cap and $1.63B book equity (P/B 25x), the entire enterprise value is a call option on daraxonrasib (RMC-6236) and the RAS(ON) portfolio.
Where I partially dissent from the synthesis: "Priced for Perfection" is the right vibe but the thesis-evaluation score of -11 (nearly balanced) understates the asymmetry. A $46B pre-revenue biotech implies roughly $8-12B in risk-adjusted peak sales NPV — that requires daraxonrasib to become standard-of-care in 2L pancreatic (a ~$3B addressable opportunity at best) plus meaningful NSCLC/CRC penetration against Mirati/BMS's adagrasib, Amgen's sotorasib, and a wave of pan-RAS competitors. The market-forces call of "Neutral" feels wrong to me — a 4-month cash runway with a $46B cap and no approved product is not neutral, it's a coiled spring where dilution math is punitive: even a $2B raise at current prices is only 4% dilution, which actually argues the equity holders benefit from raising NOW at $216 rather than waiting. That's a subtle bull point the models missed.
The contrarian case that nobody is making forcefully enough: RVMD's Phase 1/2 daraxonrasib data in pancreatic (mPDAC ORR ~20-30%, mPFS ~8-9 months) is legitimately best-in-class for a disease with median survival under a year, and pancreatic cancer has essentially no competition — unlike KRAS G12C NSCLC which is crowded. If you believe the pivotal RASolute-302 readout (expected 2026) hits, the stock is not overvalued; peak sales of $4-6B in pancreatic alone at 40-50% probability justifies $30-50B risk-adjusted. The bear case is equally clean: single-agent RAS inhibition has historically underwhelmed in Phase 3 (see adagrasib's confirmatory disappointments), and pancreatic tumors develop resistance fast. This is a genuine binary, not a "priced for perfection" story — the range of outcomes is $50 to $400, not $150 to $250.
Data quality caveat: the momentum section is empty because there is no revenue to grow, and the entire ROE/ROIC/PE canonical metric set is meaningless for a clinical-stage biotech — the pre-flight model correctly flagged this, but the synthesis still leaned on "70-80% implied probability" language that isn't derivable from the file provided. I don't see pipeline stage detail, cash runway pro-forma for recent raises, or insider activity in this data — all of which are more decision-relevant than P/B of 25x. My verdict: I partially dissent from "Priced for Perfection" because that framing suggests asymmetric downside, whereas this is genuinely binary with fat tails both ways. At $216 the stock is priced for ~50% probability of RASolute success — that's not obviously wrong, it's approximately fair for the base rate of Phase 3 oncology success in a validated mechanism with strong Phase 2 data. I would not short this and would not chase it; the honest answer is wait for the pivotal readout, and if it hits, the stock likely goes to $350+ before you can react, while a miss takes it to $60. Position sizing matters more than direction here.
GPT Reading
At $216, Revolution Medicines is being valued like a late-stage oncology winner even though the financials still look like an early clinical-stage cash furnace. The company had effectively no revenue in 2024 and 2025, yet its market cap is $46.3 billion. That gap is not automatically disqualifying in biotech, but the burn rate here is what makes the valuation hard to defend. Operating loss widened from $487.2 million in 2023 to $689.5 million in 2024 and then to $1.18 billion in 2025. Net loss followed the same path, reaching $1.13 billion in 2025, and the quarterly cadence is getting worse, not better: losses moved from -$156.3 million in 3Q24 to -$194.6 million in 4Q24, then -$213.4 million, -$247.8 million, -$305.2 million, -$364.9 million, -$453.8 million, and finally -$644.4 million in 2Q26. That is a business consuming dramatically more capital each quarter while still producing no product revenue.
The balance sheet does not match the equity valuation’s implied confidence. Cash at year-end 2025 was only $383.7 million against 2025 operating cash outflow of $897.7 million and free cash outflow of $913.7 million. On those annual figures alone, that is well under a year of runway, and the quarterly net loss trend suggests burn was still accelerating into 2026. Yes, the current ratio of 7.1 and zero debt mean the company is not balance-sheet stressed in the traditional levered sense. But that misses the actual issue: for a pre-revenue biotech, debt capacity is limited and equity is the financing tool, so cash runway matters more than debt metrics. A company trading at 25.2x book, with ROE of -69%, ROA of -48%, and no revenue base to absorb R&D intensity, is valued almost entirely on the expectation that the pipeline is not just good, but exceptional enough to justify repeated financing and eventual multi-asset commercial success. That is a heroic assumption at $46 billion.
What stands out most is the disconnect between enterprise value and what the raw numbers permit. Even if you generously assume Revolution ultimately launches one or two important targeted oncology products, the current market cap already prices in blockbuster outcomes with high probability and relatively modest dilution from here. But the financial statements argue the opposite: this company likely needs more capital soon, and each raise effectively asks new investors to fund binary clinical risk at a valuation that leaves little room for disappointment. In a lower-priced biotech, zero revenue and a $900 million annual cash burn can be tolerated as an option on science. At $46 billion, the option premium has swallowed the upside. Unless the unseen clinical package is so strong that approval odds and peak-sales potential have shifted massively upward, I think the stock is pricing a future that is too smooth, too funded, and too successful.
The strongest pushback is straightforward: biotech valuation is not built off trailing income statements, and in the rare cases where a platform genuinely cracks a high-value target class, backward-looking losses are almost irrelevant. Bulls would argue that the market is not paying for 2025’s -$1.13 billion net loss; it is paying for a differentiated RAS franchise with multiple shots on goal across mutations and combinations, where one successful asset can support billions in annual sales and a portfolio can support far more. They would also say that the company’s lack of debt is a virtue, that equity financing at a high stock price is far less painful than the cash balance alone suggests, and that a high market cap itself can be an asset if it lowers financing risk. I take that seriously. If the pipeline has crossed a threshold where probability-adjusted peak economics now support tens of billions of equity value, conventional valuation screens will look foolish. But absent actual revenue, partnership economics, or a clearer bridge from current clinical data to a realistic commercial model, I weigh the financing arithmetic and the execution risk more heavily than the platform narrative.
What would change my mind is specific evidence that the valuation is being earned rather than anticipated. I would want to see clinical readouts that materially de-risk registration paths, not just incremental efficacy signals; I would want evidence of durability, tolerability, and differentiation sufficient to support large market share assumptions; and I would want financing clarity, whether through a major partnership, non-dilutive capital, or a cash balance that is rebuilt enough to cover at least 18-24 months of development without obvious stress. Financially, the first meaningful proof point would be any emergence of revenue-bearing collaborations or milestones large enough to offset burn, and operationally I would need to see the quarterly loss trajectory stop worsening. If net losses remain in the $450-650 million quarterly range with no revenue and no major capital solution, the stock should not be anywhere near $216.
Grok Reading
The numbers on Revolution Medicines tell a story of pure narrative valuation colliding with a financing wall. This is a zero-revenue company that posted a $1.13B net loss in 2025 after a $600M loss in 2024, with operating cash outflow of $898M and free cash flow of −$914M. Cash on the balance sheet is $384M against that burn trajectory—roughly four to five months of runway at the current run-rate, before any further acceleration visible in the quarterly losses (which widened from −$213M in Q1 2025 to −$644M by Q2 2026). There is no debt, equity is $1.63B book, and the market is assigning a $46.3B enterprise value—approximately 28× book and infinite multiples of any actual cash generation. Revenue has gone from a thin collaboration trickle ($35M in 2022, $12M in 2023) to literal zero. Every profit-based multiple is negative noise; the only informative metrics are cash burn slope, runway, and the price the market is willing to pay for unproven RAS(ON) clinical optionality.
What stands out is the mismatch between that optionality and the capital structure. A pre-profit platform burning nearly a billion dollars a year with under $400M of cash cannot sustain a $46B cap without either transformative partnership economics or serial mega-dilution. The 2025 burn roughly doubled 2024’s; the first half of 2026 already implies another step-up. At $216, the stock is not discounting a pipeline—it is capitalizing a multi-blockbuster oncology franchise that does not yet exist, embedding success probabilities and peak-share assumptions that leave almost no room for Phase 2/3 attrition, competitive crowding from Amgen and others, or delayed approval timelines. The prior models’ “priced for perfection” label is not rhetoric; it is arithmetic. PB of 25× on a company destroying nearly 70% of equity value annually via ROE of −0.69 is the market treating book as irrelevant and story as the entire asset.
The strongest case against this read is that RAS remains the largest undrugged oncogenic driver, and if Revolution’s tri-complex RAS(ON) chemistry is truly differentiated with multiple mutant-selective shots, the addressable market can support tens of billions of NPV across combinations. Bulls will correctly note zero leverage, a clean balance sheet, institutional sponsorship in precision oncology, and the fact that platform biotechs with genuine first-mover chemistry have historically been acquired or rerated violently on clean registrational data. They will argue the cash burn is the cost of owning the category and that a big-pharma deal or equity raise at these levels is validation, not distress. I weigh that differently because validation at $46B already assumes the outcome; any partnership that does not transfer several billion in non-dilutive value still leaves equity holders funding a multi-year cash hole from a sky-high base, and “multiple shots” does not erase the binary nature of oncology Phase 3. The bear mass in the thesis evaluation (priced for certainty at maximum uncertainty; RAS market may not support $46B for a #2–3 player) is the binding constraint, not the scientific romance.
My mind flips on two concrete things: a definitive late-stage clinical readout that cleanly separates RVMD’s RAS(ON) agents on durability and combinability versus KRAS G12C incumbents, paired with a partnership or financing that extends runway past 24 months without crushing the share count; or, conversely, a clear miss on ORR/PFS or a competitor leapfrog that collapses the differentiation narrative. Until then the stock at $216 is a call option mispriced as a franchise.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Revolution Medicines is a classic pre-profit clinical-stage biotech: revenue collapsed from $35.4M (2022) to $11.6M (2023) to zero in 2024-2025 as collaboration revenue rolled off, and the company now runs purely on cash reserves. Net loss expanded from $187M (2021) to $1.13B (2025), with FCF burn accelerating to -$913.7M. Liquid cash of $2.03B against that burn implies roughly 8.9 quarters of runway - a raise is essentially a matter of when, not if.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Clinical readout timing and data for RMC-6236 and other RAS(ON) inhibitor programs
- Terms of any convertible notes, warrants, or PIPE structures beyond common equity
- Whether the collaboration with Sanofi (or others) can be revived to bring in non-dilutive milestone payments
- Insider selling cadence relative to clinical catalysts
- Detailed cash guidance from management on expected runway and next financing
This is a pre-revenue clinical biotech burning ~$914M/yr with $2.03B cash (under 9 quarters of runway) trading at a $46.3B market cap. There is no earnings, cash flow, or revenue base to anchor deserved value - the price is entirely a call option on RAS(ON) inhibitors, chiefly daraxonrasib in PDAC/NSCLC. To justify $46B today, you need to underwrite a high-probability path to multi-billion peak sales across several indications, net of dilution that has already run 2.6x in four years and will continue as the company funds Phase 3 and commercial build-out.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- RASolute 302 (daraxonrasib PDAC Phase 3) interim/final timing and event accrual
- Updated cash runway and any ATM/secondary activity in latest 10-Q
- Competitive readouts from Amgen (MRTX/BMS RAS(ON)) that could compress peak-sales math
- Any partnership/licensing deals that would derisk funding without dilution
RVMD is exactly the kind of stock that lives or dies on narrative and tape, and both are currently pushing up. It is a pre-revenue, beta-1.4 clinical biotech with no earnings anchor, so sentiment IS the price. The prevailing story - a first-mover platform-monopoly in 'undruggable' RAS with a $50B+ TAM - is a strong, medium-cult archetype that gets rewarded whenever risk appetite is on, and the tape (+38 risk-on, VIX 14.9, S&P near highs) is a supportive backdrop for exactly this profile. High-beta, story-driven names outperform in this regime; that macro lift lands harder here than on a defensive compounder. That said, durability of the narrative is only 'moderate' and momentum is neutral (score 0), which tells me the story is holding but not accelerating. Competitive pressure from Amgen and others is the live bear thread that can crack the platform-monopoly framing, and any RAS-competitor clinical readout could rotate sentiment fast. Net: a real tailwind, not a euphoric one - the tape and archetype are helping, but the story is not currently in mania mode.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Competing RAS/SHP2/SOS1 readouts from Amgen, Mirati/BMS and others that could crack the platform-monopoly framing
- Analyst target revisions and consensus split - any downgrade citing crowding would accelerate a narrative fade
- VIX breaking back above 20 or a sharp risk-off rotation - high-beta biotech would give back the tape lift first
- Any RVMD-specific clinical update (RMC-6236, RMC-6291) that would either lock in or break the first-mover story
- Sector rotation signals in XBI vs SPX - biotech leadership vs lag tells you if the archetype is in favor
The world is moving toward drugging previously intractable oncogenic drivers, and payer/regulatory appetite for meaningful survival benefit in pancreatic and lung cancer is high. A neutral macro with a 4.71% 10-year keeps the cost of funding long-duration clinical assets elevated, which pressures pre-revenue developers' financing terms without changing the clinical thesis. Competitive imitation of the RAS(ON) approach means the window to establish first-mover positioning is finite: the structural growth question is whether the lead asset reaches market before the category becomes a field of near-equivalents.
When we made this prediction on Aug 19, 2026, RVMD was $214.66. We expect it to be $212.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $150.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 19, 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.