COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
ABBV vs AZN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ABBV scored 63.6, AZN scored 74.5 — 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.
63.6
$264.52 · $467.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.9
AZN leads
AZN
AstraZeneca PLC
74.5
$166.71 · $258.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestAZN24.9x
- Fastest growthABBV+10.4%
- Highest qualityAZN78 / 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
71
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
66
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
AZN is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ABBV
AZN
$18.2bA-
FCF
$11.8bA-
+10.4%B
Rev
+8.6%B
—
D/E
0.64C+
74.5xC
P/E
24.9xB
0.43A
PEG
1.43B
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
31% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
20% above
~17%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~13%/yr
-35%
1-yr DCF upside
-27%
-24%
5-yr DCF upside
-17%
-3%
10-yr DCF upside
+0%
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.
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $467.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $267.47 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.43 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $276.59 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong. $467.4b 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 74.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. ROE -106% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
AZNAstraZeneca PLC
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $258.5b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $212.71 — deep drawdown territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $213.99 (implying +28% 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% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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 10.9 points in favor of AZN. The widest single difference is Value, where AZN leads by 12.8 points.
- ValueABBV 54.7 · AZN 67.5AZN +12.8
- GrowthABBV 65.9 · AZN 78.5AZN +12.6
- QualityABBV 71.2 · AZN 78.1AZN +6.9
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.