For an investor holding Merck, directly or through a fund, the cancer-vaccine story rests on the company's own filings as much as on the science. Merck's cash balance stood at $14.565 billion at the end of fiscal 20251. By the second quarter of 2026 it was $6.849 billion1. These are figures from SEC filings, verified in our data. Whether you already own Merck depends on your funds, and our data does not say how much of any index it makes up.
What the filings show about Merck's cash
Merck's cash did not fall in a straight line. It stood at $6.841 billion at fiscal year-end 2023, rose to $13.242 billion at the end of 2024, then to $14.565 billion at the end of 20251. The highest quarterly reading in our series is $18.169 billion in the third quarter of 20251. The first quarter of 2026 shows $5.327 billion1, and the second quarter shows $6.849 billion1.
Put plainly, the balance at the end of the third quarter of 2025 was about three and a half times the first-quarter 2026 figure. Year on year, second-quarter cash fell from $8.007 billion in 2025 to $6.849 billion in 20261. Our dossier does not say why the balance moved. It could reflect many uses of cash, and we will not guess. This is a snapshot of cash on hand on a given date, not a measure of profit or of financial health.
Costs are rising faster than the cash story suggests
Merck's cost of revenue is the direct cost of making and delivering what it sells. It was $16.126 billion in fiscal 2023, $15.193 billion in 2024 and $16.382 billion in 20252. That is an increase of about 8% in the latest full year, by our arithmetic from the filed figures.
The quarterly figures show a sharper step. First-quarter cost of revenue rose from $3.419 billion in 2025 to $4.195 billion in 2026, roughly 23% higher2. Second-quarter cost rose from $3.557 billion to $4.395 billion, about 24% higher2. Our verified dataset holds no revenue figures for Merck, so we cannot say whether sales grew as fast. Without that, no one can tell from this data whether margins widened or narrowed. If you see a claim about Merck's profitability from these numbers alone, treat it with caution.
Capital spending: a recent dip after a big year
Capital expenditure, meaning money spent on plants, equipment and facilities, was $3.863 billion in 2023 and $3.372 billion in 2024. It rose to $4.112 billion in 20253. In the first quarter, spending went from $861 million in 2024 to $1.328 billion in 2025, then fell to $991 million in 20263. The 2026 quarter is about a quarter lower than the year before. One quarter is not a trend, and the dossier does not link any of this spending to the vaccine program.
The clinical event behind the sentiment
The reason oncology sentiment has lifted is clinical. Our event feed records that a personalized vaccine developed by Merck and Moderna stopped melanoma from returning in a historic clinical trial4. Detailed results are due at the ESMO cancer congress on Oct. 24, and the companies plan to engage with regulators on possible filings5. Until those details are public, the headline claim remains unexamined. The data to watch is how large the effect was, in how many patients, and over how long.
A second regulatory date sits close behind. Summit's Biologics License Application for ivonescimab, based on the HARMONi trial, has an FDA action date of Nov. 14, 20266. Our dossier does not include Summit's financials, so we cannot size the stakes in dollars.
AI-designed biologics: a plan more than a result
AstraZeneca's Puja Sapra describes a 'lab of the future' in which, in her words, "Where a self-driving car uses sensors and models to navigate its environment, this system uses AI to make predictions, robotic systems to execute experiments, and instruments to generate data."7 She calls the company's data its edge: "Data is our differentiator."7 She also names the main unsolved problem: "One of the hardest problems in de novo design is predicting whether a computationally generated molecule will be safe in the human body."7 And she says human oversight stays central: "With more autonomous systems, human oversight remains at the heart of this approach—ensuring explainable and ethical AI for the benefit of patients."7
For an investor, this is a statement of intent. It contains no approved drug and no revenue figure. It is also worth knowing how well this source has held up. Our measurement found that none of the 11 claims we checked from this MIT Technology Review article held up against their sources7. We quote the speaker accurately, but we do not treat the article as evidence that AI is shortening drug timelines.
Smaller companies: runways and deals
The pressure on smaller cancer biotechs shows up in cash planning. ADC Therapeutics says it "maintains a cash runway into 2028, supporting ongoing regulatory and clinical plans for ZYNLONTA combinations"8. The same weekly roundup's headline also notes that the company cut jobs8. That source is only 45% reliable on the 520 claims we checked8, so the figures here should be confirmed against company filings.
Treeline Biosciences is taking a different route, a transaction with Standard BioTools. The announcement highlights over $900 million expected at closing for the combined company9. It also reports headline Phase 1 data for TLN-121 in relapsed or refractory lymphomas: an overall response rate of 84%, a complete response rate of 32% and no observed dose-limiting toxicities9. Treeline's chief, Josh Bilenker, says the deal "will help us accelerate the development of our clinical programs"9. Updates on TLN-121 and TLN-372 are planned for 20279.
Caution is warranted. This is a company press release, and the source measures at only 31% reliability across 2,925 checked claims9. The response rates come from an early, small-scale trial phase and are the company's own figures. The $900 million is an expectation at closing, not cash in the bank today.
Commercial proof points
Novocure reported second-quarter 2026 net revenues of $184 million, up 16% year on year, with 18% growth in active patients10. Its chief executive, Frank Leonard, called it "our strongest quarter to date, with record net revenues and active patients on therapy"10. This source is rated 57% reliable across 4,954 checked claims10, so we rely on it for the headline figures only.
Elsewhere in the sector, the European regulator's committee recommended Gilead's Trodelvy plus Keytruda for first-line PD-(L)1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer11. Telix dosed the first patient in a Phase 3 trial of TLX250-Tx in kidney cancer12. The topic's wider narrative also points to raised second-quarter guidance at Hematology and Oncology, Opzelura and Kiniksa. We have no source document for those figures in this dossier, so we cannot verify them.
What to watch
- Oct. 24: the detailed intismeran data at ESMO, and any word on regulatory filings5.
- Nov. 14: the FDA action date for ivonescimab6.
- Merck's next filing: whether cost of revenue keeps rising about 23% year on year, and where cash settles after the swings in our series12.
- 2027: the planned TLN-121 and TLN-372 updates from Treeline9.
The sentiment is bullish, and the clinical signals are real but early. What can be checked today is Merck's filed numbers, and those show a company with less cash and higher costs than a year ago.
