What happened with CRSP today?
No read yet
Uses news and trading volume to explain the day’s move and how it relates to the market.
Stop guessing. Get the call, a three-month target price, the best and worst cases, and a source for every claim.
CRISPR Therapeutics develops treatments that edit DNA to address disease. Its approved therapy, CASGEVY, treats eligible patients with severe sickle cell disease or transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia. Treatment involves editing a patient’s blood stem cells outside the body and returning them after preparatory chemotherapy. Its other programs remain in development.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals leads CASGEVY commercialization and controls manufacturing and key development activities. CRISPR Therapeutics receives a share of the program’s revenue and bears a share of its costs, with profits and losses split between the partners. Its proceeds currently do not cover its share of program expenses. Vertex also pays for licensed gene-editing rights through upfront and milestone payments; royalties on those licensed products depend on future sales.
The business therefore leans heavily on Vertex’s ability to develop, manufacture and sell treatments, and on healthcare coverage and reimbursement. CRISPR Therapeutics has no approved wholly owned product and no sales revenue from wholly owned products, and finances its work through capital raising and partner payments. Other candidates need regulatory approval before sale, while exclusive rights granted to Vertex prevent it from offering other partners rights to certain targets.
The risk section is the longest, dullest part of the filing. This keeps only what can really hurt you: where it hits, how hard, when it plays out.
Every company claims an edge. Each one is checked against hard numbers like margins and returns: which hold, and which line gives way first.
CRISPR Therapeutics depends on Vertex to lead CASGEVY sales to treatment centers and medicine distributors, and receives 40% of its net profits or bears 40% of its net losses, subject to adjustments; Vertex also pays to use CRISPR’s editing technology in other programs. Watch Vertex’s CASGEVY uptake and reimbursement news for eligible sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia patients.
Beam Therapeutics competes with CRISPR Therapeutics for sickle cell disease and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency treatments by changing individual DNA letters, an approach called base editing. Beam currently earns revenue mainly from licensing and collaboration agreements rather than medicine sales; its treatment efficacy and safety results are the useful comparison for CRISPR’s programs.
Intellia and CRISPR Therapeutics both use tiny fat-based particles, or lipid nanoparticles, to deliver CRISPR medicines inside the body, and coordinate protection of foundational CRISPR patents. Intellia’s Phase 3 results for lonvo-z in hereditary angioedema and nex-z in transthyretin amyloidosis offer concrete evidence to watch on this delivery approach.
Editas Medicine competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in gene-editing treatments for hemoglobin disorders and cardiovascular disease, while also receiving fees for licensing editing technology. Watch its cardiovascular candidate EDIT-401 and its work on editing cells inside the body for sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.
Caribou Biosciences competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in blood-cancer treatments made from donor T cells with multiple gene edits—off-the-shelf CAR T therapies—and shares obligations to manage foundational CRISPR patents. Its Phase 1 results for vispa-cel in relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and CB-011 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma are the clinical comparisons to watch.
Prime Medicine competes with CRISPR Therapeutics’ next-generation editing and cell therapies through precise DNA correction, liver-disease medicines and engineered T cells. Prime receives payments for letting BMS use its editing technology and designs the editing reagents; progress in its alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency program and BMS T-cell work is worth comparing with CRISPR’s approaches.
Scribe Therapeutics competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in genetic medicines that target cardiovascular risk factors, including lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Scribe receives funding and payments from collaborators rather than product sales; its Lp(a) program is the closest comparison for CRISPR’s work in this area.
Allogene Therapeutics competes with CRISPR Therapeutics by engineering donor T cells into ready-made treatments for cancer and autoimmune disease. Its revenue through December 31, 2025 came exclusively from licensing to Overland Therapeutics; watch whether its cell therapies kill cancer cells or eliminate disease-causing self-reactive cells in clinical studies.
Sana Biotechnology competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in developing transplanted therapeutic cells designed to resist patients’ immune systems, including replacement cells for type 1 diabetes.
Century Therapeutics competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in engineered cell treatments for type 1 diabetes and B-cell-mediated autoimmune disease. Watch Century’s replacement beta-cell program CNTY-813 and autoimmune-disease candidate CNTY-101 for evidence on whether its immune-protection approach lets transplanted cells persist.
Cellectis competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in gene-edited donor T cells that can be stored and supplied as off-the-shelf CAR T treatments for blood cancers, and also licenses technology and development rights to partners. Its UCART results in acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma offer comparisons on safety and efficacy.
Fate Therapeutics competes with CRISPR Therapeutics in engineered T-cell cancer treatments made in advance rather than separately for each patient. Ono pays Fate to research and develop these cells; watch FT825/ONO-8250 in HER2-expressing solid tumors for clinical evidence on Fate’s mass-produced cell approach.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc earningsVRTX
Vertex leads CASGEVY’s commercialization, and its report will show how uptake and access affect the partnership income CRISPR Therapeutics shares.
Look for Vertex’s updates on CASGEVY uptake and reimbursement, then consider CRISPR Therapeutics’ 40% share of net profits or losses. Wider use and better access would support more shared profit; limited uptake or inadequate reimbursement could leave sales too small to offset CRISPR Therapeutics’ share of costs. Vertex’s results speak to CASGEVY commercialization, not to the progress of CRISPR Therapeutics’ other programs.
Beam Therapeutics Inc. earningsBEAM
Beam Therapeutics’ clinical results will offer a comparison for CRISPR Therapeutics by showing how Beam’s different editing approach performs in overlapping disease areas.
Read Beam’s clinical efficacy and safety results, keeping in mind that it uses base editing, a different method from CRISPR Therapeutics’ approach. Promising results with acceptable safety would make Beam a stronger competitor for patients and research resources in overlapping diseases; disappointing results would point to challenges for Beam, not prove whether CRISPR Therapeutics’ therapies will succeed or fail.
Intellia Therapeutics, Inc earningsNTLA
Intellia Therapeutics’ Phase 3 programs will provide evidence on delivering CRISPR medicines inside the body with lipid nanoparticles, a delivery approach relevant to CRISPR Therapeutics’ work.
Look at efficacy and safety updates for Intellia’s Phase 3 programs, lonvo-z and nex-z; both use lipid nanoparticles to deliver treatment inside the body. Positive results would add evidence that this delivery approach can work in people; limited efficacy or safety problems would highlight risks to address. The companies’ programs and diseases differ, so Intellia’s results do not directly prove whether CRISPR Therapeutics’ programs will succeed.
Sana Biotechnology, Inc. earningsSANA
Sana Biotechnology is developing transplanted cells designed to resist immune attack, and its progress will show whether that approach is becoming a more concrete competitor to CRISPR Therapeutics’ Type 1 diabetes program.
Look for clinical updates that speak to immune protection and whether transplanted cells persist. Evidence of progress would make Sana’s approach a more concrete competitor to CRISPR Therapeutics’ Type 1 diabetes cell-replacement program; without such evidence, that competitive threat remains unproven. Sana’s results are specific to its own programs and cannot establish whether CRISPR Therapeutics’ cells will persist or work.
CRISPR Therapeutics AG earningsThis company
CRISPR Therapeutics shares CASGEVY’s costs and profits with Vertex, and this report shows whether its share of the collaboration’s revenue is keeping pace with its expenses.
Compare collaboration revenue from CASGEVY with collaboration expense, and check how much cash operating activities used. Revenue rising relative to expense while cash use eases would show CASGEVY covering more of its own costs; revenue far below expense alongside high cash use would show that spending still outweighs the collaboration’s contribution, leaving the company reliant on its reserves or financing. Collaboration revenue can include one-time milestone payments, so a single-quarter increase is not proof of recurring income.
Caribou Biosciences, Inc. earningsCRBU
Caribou Biosciences’ early clinical results will show how gene-edited donor T cells perform in blood cancers, offering a comparison for CRISPR Therapeutics’ engineered cell therapies.
Read the Phase 1 results for Caribou’s vispa-cel and CB-011, weighing activity against safety. Clinical activity with manageable safety would make ready-to-use, gene-edited cell therapies more credible competitors; limited activity or difficult safety issues would show hurdles for Caribou’s candidates. Its blood-cancer programs cannot directly predict how CRISPR Therapeutics’ CAR T therapies will perform in cancer or autoimmune disease.
Scribe Therapeutics Inc. earningsSCTX
Scribe Therapeutics’ Lp(a) program targets an area related to CRISPR Therapeutics’ cardiovascular work with Sirius, so its progress will show whether competition around this target is becoming more concrete.
Look for updates on Scribe’s Lp(a) program, while keeping it distinct from the cardiovascular programs CRISPR Therapeutics is developing with Sirius: they compete in a related area, but are not the same program or technology. Clear progress would show a rival advancing in this field; limited progress would leave the competitive challenge less established. Scribe’s report does not reveal how the CRISPR Therapeutics–Sirius programs are progressing.
