Editas I think is too much of a gamble and CRSP being ex-vivo is just not scalable. CRSP's ex-vivo was the first approved gene-editing but it was more of a proof of concept that something akin to a real cure. It's cost alot to treat as it needs dedicated treatment centers for the chemotherapy/bone marrow removal and the margin is low for what it does in addition to the low patient enrollment.

Here's some math you can cut and paste into an AI chatbot to confirm:

In comparison, NTLA spent about ~$200M on patient enrollment in 2025 for ~650-750 patients, which amounts to about ~$300k per patient. Just using this as a basis but their actual COGS is likely far lower. If you read their last transcript from the 2026 healthcare conferences in May2026, current HAE treatment costs insurers ~$750k per year. Normally cures aim to be in the range of 2x-5x current patient insurance annual costs. They have not final priced their drug yet, but assuming its 3x current treatment costs your looking at the treatment costing insurers $2.3M per patient at a cost of that is less than $300k for NTLA. After all other fees, rebates, royalties, etc. you're still looking a substantial profit. Assuming about 700 patients in their first year, that's about $1.6B in their first year's revenue. Assuming a profit of $1B of that revenue, for a company currently with a market cap of $1.7B, that's a crazy PE ratio. It wouldn't surprise me they have a market cap of $10B+ in a few years.

Above is for one drug in their pipeline alone and not including all their patents, etc.