Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ABBV scored 50.1, AZN scored 72.0 — AZN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. ABBV's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but AZN's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
ABBV
AbbVie Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
50.1
$276.47 · $488.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.9
AZN leads
AZN
AstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
72
$159.20 · $246.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAZN23.8x
Fastest growthABBV+10.4%
Highest qualityABBV84 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ABBV
stronger →← stronger
AZN
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
19
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
AZN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ABBV
AZN
$18.2bA-
FCF
$11.8bA-
+10.4%B
Rev
+8.6%B
Negative equity
D/E
0.64C+
78.1xC
P/E
23.8xB+
0.56A-
PEG
1.12B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ABBV
AZN
56% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% above
~19%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~12%/yr
-41%
1-yr DCF upside
-22%
-36%
5-yr DCF upside
-10%
-28%
10-yr DCF upside
+10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ABBV
Why this score
Raising its dividend
AZN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
ABBVAbbVie Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · $276.47 · beta 0.23
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $488.6b. Trading near 52-week high of $277.60 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.56 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 28 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $282.61 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($7.9b) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong. $488.6b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate. Pharma moat is patent runway + pipeline depth — a single approved molecule funds the next generation of bets. Late-stage trials carry binary readouts that swing valuation 30%+.
Risk
Trailing P/E 78.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trial-readout binary — late-stage clinical trials carry approve/reject outcomes that swing valuation 30%+; the equity is effectively a portfolio of these binary events, not a steady cash-flow business.
AZNAstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · $159.20 · beta 0.21
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $246.9b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $212.71 — deep drawdown territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $206.91 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 21% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 115% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trial-readout binary — late-stage clinical trials carry approve/reject outcomes that swing valuation 30%+; the equity is effectively a portfolio of these binary events, not a steady cash-flow business.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ABBV and AZN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.9 points in favor of AZN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueABBV 19.4 · AZN 61.1AZN +41.7
QualityABBV 83.7 · AZN 77.8ABBV +5.9
GrowthABBV 77.4 · AZN 78.5level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is AZN or ABBV the better stock?
AZN scores higher: AZN 72.0, ABBV 50.1 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do AZN and ABBV differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AZN leads by 42 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are AZN and ABBV scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.