Ann: Positive Results from Australian Adult Clinical Studies, page-50

Everybody... @bruutz82 does serious work and raises serious questions.  

First — and I've been following both stocks for quite some time — there are some differences between the products.

1) ResappDx isn't a personal-use medical app.  It's designed to be used by a medical professional as a diagnostic tool.  There are no present plans to deploy the product in a way that doesn't deliver the diagnosis to a medicial practitioner.
2) The revenue base isn't price-for-app, but price-for-access plus price-per-use.
3) It's not a treatment.

As far as stage-of-development goes, it's quite reasonable to draw comparisons between the two products as they are both based around trainable algorithms.  My take on both is that...

1) They're at a similar stage of readiness for deployment.  The other company has just engaged a design company to improve the comfort and usability of the hardware.  Resapp have found over the last 12 months that they have had to make a number of tweaks to the user interface and sample selection criteria.  Nevertheless both companies appear to have their products in essentially final form.

2) Both products have a considerable body of informal data in support of their effectiveness.  The other product has been tested in clinics and in the field through placements with patients and carers to measure both neurological and behavioural responses.  ResappDx has been the subject of a considerable amount of research and testing.  Field trials are not an option for Resapp as no doctor would dream of relying on a diagnoses from an unapproved tool.

3) Neither product has yet been rigorously tested in properly controlled, double-blind clinical trials.  Both companies are currently conducting trials of this type.  The other company's US trial is expected to be complete and announce results at around the same time as Resapp's Australian trial is complete.  Resapp's US trial is expected to announce results before mid year.

4) Neither product has FDA approval yet, although both companies are in the process of preparing submissions.  Again, the other company is about six months ahead of Resapp.

Both products seem to be something of a "Holy Grail" promise within their respective areas.  One appears to produce a profound, lingering improvement in the capabilities and life quality of those on the autism spectrum.  The other appears to offer instant, accurate differential diagnosis of pulmonary conditions that previously required time-consuming, expensive tests and delays in initiating effective treatment.

So, to the actual question... why the difference in valuation?  Not sure really, but here are some possibilities...

1) A degree of irrational exuberance.  Resapp created an enormous amount of buzz when it launched, which was sustained right up to the moment it was crushed like a bug under the heel of clinical-trial-failure reality.  I believe that the remaining level of irrational exuberance is at most a minor factor at present.

2) Size of market.  Both products address driving market needs, but the size of the global market for ResappDx is seriously large.  The September investor presentation has numbers you should look at.  We're estimating 700 million pulmonary-related doctor visits per annum in the OECD.  You don't need a big operating profit margin to make serious money.

3) Low cost structure.  ResappDx (at present) embodies only software and data.  There is no overhead for manufacturing or logistics.  This gives Resapp rapid, low-cost access to global markets.  This feeds directly into the previous point.  The price-per-use can compete extremely strongly against traditional methods and still return substantial profits.

I hope my musings are of assistance.