(1) AVXL focuses on activation of the SR1 receptor and SAVA focuses on repairing the FLNA protein, essentially they approach the same problem very similarly, but from two different angles. Neither focus on amyloid cascades or tau tangles, yet both address those issues in a different way.

(2) AVXL tries to clean out the pathological materials such as amyloid plaques using a cell housekeeping process that eats the plaques, while CASA tries to repair the alterations made to FLNA by amyloid plaques by blocking the alteration process. Quite interesting scientifically.

(3) AVXL has a lead over SASA in safety, having tested their drug with humans for longer periods. AVXL has claimed at CTAD that they have statistically significant cognitive improvements, but failed to present their data; while SAVA has the lead over AVXL with statistically convincing data, but is still working to obtain the long-term safety and efficacy data.

(4) AVXL’s next generation drug candidate have a very similar chemical structure to sumiflam. So It is very likely both drugs could activate sigma receptor. AVXL's next generation drug might have a chance to match Sumiflam, but it will take AVXL years to catch up. 

(5) In the sense the two companies are doing similar things in different ways, but neither will likely displace the other. BIIB's failure should bring attention to these small companies since they both avoid the approach used by BIIB, although, of the two, AVXL is more like BIIB in its approach (?).