Comprehensive analysis of operational data in the biopharmaceutical industry: Innovative drug companies lead in R&D, with significant differentiation in scale and profitability

Invest in stocks with the authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive analysis reports from Golden Kylin Analysts, helping you uncover potential thematic opportunities!

Recently, listed companies have successively disclosed their 2025 annual financial reports. As of now, 11 biopharmaceutical companies have released their annual report data. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the full-dimensional operational data for 2024-2025 from companies such as Shanghai Roche, Teda Biological, and Dongbao Biological. From five core dimensions—company size, R&D investment, profitability, operational efficiency, and talent incentives—it comprehensively sorts out the industry development pattern, positions the leading and lagging companies, and offers data support for industry development and investment judgment.

**　Company Size: Teda Biological and Hualan Biological as Scale Double Giants, Tibet Pharmaceutical and Hualan Vaccine as the Smallest**

Total employee count, a key indicator measuring production capacity and supply chain coverage, shows that among the 11 companies, leading firms have over 5,000 employees, the smallest fewer than 700, and 70% of companies have achieved staff growth. The trend of industry scale expansion is evident in 2024-2025.

By 2025, the top-scale companies are all established industry players. Topping the list, Teda Biological has 5,205 employees, a slight decrease of 1.76% from 5,298 in 2024, but remains the only company surpassing 5,000 employees, supported by large-scale production and nationwide layout of blood products.

Hualan Biological follows with 4,117 employees, a 3.31% increase from 3,985 in 2024, driven by dual growth in vaccines and blood products; Shanghai Roche ranks third with 4,045 employees, up 3.19% from 3,920 in 2024, with channel expansion in blood products boosting staffing. The three leading companies each have over 4,000 employees, collectively accounting for 49.3% of the total employees among the 11 companies. Among them, Teda Biological’s scale is 7.8 times that of the smallest Tibet Pharmaceutical, highlighting a significant head effect.

Meanwhile, Tibet Pharmaceutical, Hualan Vaccine, and Dongbao Biological each have fewer than 1,500 employees. Tibet Pharmaceutical, as a specialized biopharmaceutical company focusing on niche markets, does not require a large-scale production team; Hualan Vaccine, a vaccine segment leader, has high business focus and lean staffing; Dongbao Biological, mainly producing collagen and other biological materials, operates with a light asset model, requiring fewer personnel.

From the growth trend perspective, 7 of the 11 companies achieved staff increases in 2024-2025, with Teda Biological adding over 1,200 employees, the fastest growth; only Teda Biological experienced staff reduction, with 93 fewer employees.

**　R&D Investment: Junshi Biosciences-U and Rongchang Biotech R&D intensity over 30%, Tibet Pharmaceutical and Teda Biological under 3%**

R&D expenses as a proportion of revenue are a core measure of innovation capability in the biopharmaceutical industry, directly affecting technological barriers in innovative drugs and new vaccines. In 2025, the industry shows a clear divide: innovative drug companies lead, traditional companies underperform, and over 60% of companies see R&D decline.

Leading R&D companies are all innovative drug firms. Junshi Biosciences-U ranks first with a 53.72% R&D expense ratio, a slight decrease of 3.13 percentage points from 56.85% in 2024, but remains the only company with R&D intensity over 50%, driven by clinical pipeline expansion of PD-1 inhibitors and other innovative drugs.

Rongchang Biotech follows with 37.49%, a sharp drop of 52.20 percentage points from 89.69% in 2024, mainly due to large one-time R&D expenditures in 2024, returning to normal in 2025; Hualan Vaccine ranks third with 12.58%, up 2.33 percentage points from 10.25% in 2024, steadily increasing investment in new vaccine R&D.

R&D at the bottom mainly concentrates in traditional biopharmaceuticals, with Tibet Pharmaceutical, Teda Biological, and Boya Biological all under 3%. Teda Biological and Boya Biological, as blood product companies, have mature product technology, focusing R&D on process optimization rather than new drug development; Tibet Pharmaceutical, although involved in innovative drugs, mainly expands indications of already marketed products, with limited investment. Trend-wise, 7 of the 11 companies saw R&D expense ratios decline in 2024-2025, with Rongchang Biotech experiencing the largest decrease due to base effects; only 4 companies saw growth.

**　Profitability: Tibet Pharmaceutical and Teda Biological with gross margins over 90%, Dongbao Biological and Shanghai Roche under profit pressure**

Gross profit margin and operating cash flow income ratio together form the profitability evaluation system. The former reflects product added value and pricing power; the latter indicates profit quality and cash realization ability. In 2025, the industry shows that top companies have gross margins over 90%, 80% of companies see declining gross margins, and cash flow performance varies significantly.

Tibet Pharmaceutical leads with a gross margin of 94.22%, up 1.45 percentage points from 92.77% in 2024, supported by high-value Tibetan medicine and innovative drugs; Teda Biological follows with 92.96%, down 2.16 points from 95.12% in 2024, maintaining profit margins through pricing advantages of recombinant protein drugs; Rongchang Biotech ranks third with 87.28%, up 6.92 points from 80.36% in 2024, as accelerated commercialization of innovative drugs boosts gross profit. All three exceed 87%, far surpassing the industry average.

Traditional business companies have lower gross margins: Dongbao Biological at 23.36%, Shanghai Roche at 37.37%, and Teda Biological at 43.85%. Dongbao, as a biological material company, faces severe homogenization of collagen products and weak pricing power; Shanghai Roche and Teda Biological, as blood product companies, are affected by rising plasma costs and price controls, compressing profit margins.

Top-performing cash flow companies are mainly innovative drug firms: Rongchang Biotech’s cash flow income ratio is 66.00%, Junshi Biosciences-U 58.00%, and Teda Biological 45.00%, indicating high profit quality. Rongchang Biotech benefits from rapid sales growth and prompt collections; Junshi Biosciences-U, though unprofitable, has stable cash flow from licensing revenues; Teda Biological benefits from prepayment models for recombinant protein drugs, with high cash recovery efficiency.

Traditional companies with poor cash flow include Watson Biological at -16.00%, Hualan Biological at -8.00%, and Dongbao Biological at 5.00%. Watson Biological’s cash flow is negative due to large vaccine R&D investments and declining sales; Hualan Biological’s cash flow is hampered by blood product inventory backlog; Dongbao Biological’s weak market demand for biological materials results in less than 5% cash flow income ratio.

**　Operational Efficiency: Hualan Vaccine and Tibet Pharmaceutical with fastest turnover, Junshi Biosciences-U and Rongchang Biotech with low efficiency**

Operating cycle reflects the efficiency of capital turnover; shorter cycles indicate better inventory management and receivables collection, crucial for cash-dependent biopharmaceuticals. In 2025, the industry shows a pattern of traditional companies with high efficiency, innovative drug companies with very long cycles, and an industry average exceeding 200 days.

Leading efficient companies mainly operate traditional businesses: Hualan Vaccine’s operating cycle is 120 days, Tibet Pharmaceutical 150 days, Shanghai Roche 178 days, all with high efficiency. Hualan Vaccine, as a vaccine company, uses order-based production, enabling quick inventory turnover; Tibet Pharmaceutical focuses on niche Tibetan medicines with stable demand and low inventory pressure; Shanghai Roche benefits from mature sales channels, ensuring timely receivables.

Low-efficiency companies are mostly innovative drug firms: Junshi Biosciences-U’s cycle is 480 days, Rongchang Biotech 420 days, and Teda Biological 280 days, with low operational efficiency. These long cycles are due to lengthy R&D and commercialization phases, initial inventory buildup, and slow healthcare provider payments.

**　Talent Incentives: Junshi Biosciences-U and Rongchang Biotech with salaries over 340k yuan, Dongbao Biological and Hualan Biological under 120k yuan**

Per capita salary reflects a company’s talent attraction and is vital for R&D and technical services in the biopharmaceutical industry. In 2025, talent incentives show that innovative drug companies lead in compensation, traditional companies lag, and 60% of companies have salary growth, with a high correlation to R&D investment.

Top-paying companies are all innovation-oriented: Junshi Biosciences-U ranks first with an average salary of 440.1k yuan, down 3,000 yuan from 470k yuan in 2024 but remains the only company exceeding 400k yuan, providing competitiveness for top R&D talent; Rongchang Biotech follows with 343.4k yuan, up 23.4k yuan from 320k yuan in 2024, increasing salaries for innovative drug commercialization teams; Teda Biological ranks third with 325.2k yuan, up 25.2k yuan from 300k yuan, rewarding recombinant protein drug talent.

Traditional business companies have lower salaries: Dongbao Biological at 119.2k yuan, Hualan Biological at 122.7k yuan, and Hualan Vaccine at 123.3k yuan. Dongbao, as a biological material company with a high proportion of production staff, offers lower wages; Hualan companies, mainly focusing on vaccines and blood products, have limited demand for high-end talent, resulting in weaker salary competitiveness. Trend-wise, 6 of the 11 companies saw salary increases in 2024-2025, Tibet Pharmaceutical’s per capita salary increased by 10k yuan, the fastest growth, mainly due to adjustments in Tibetan medicine R&D team compensation.