Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ABBV scored 50.1, PAHC scored 70.7 — PAHC leads.
Compare another set
ABBV
AbbVie Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
50.1
$276.47 · $488.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.6
PAHC leads
PAHC
Phibro Animal Health Corporation
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
70.7
$38.30 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPAHC15.8x
Fastest growthPAHC+17.1%
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
PAHC
84
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
81
19
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
72
PAHC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ABBV
PAHC
$18.2bA-
FCF
$10mC-
+10.4%B
Rev
+17.1%B+
Negative equity
D/E
2.06D
78.1xC
P/E
15.8xA-
0.56A-
PEG
1.68C+
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
PAHC
56% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
773% above
~19%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-41%
1-yr DCF upside
-90%
-36%
5-yr DCF upside
-89%
-28%
10-yr DCF upside
-86%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
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
PAHC
No notable signals flagged.
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.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · market cap $1.6b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $60.08 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $44.00 (implying +15% upside).
Moat
ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. 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
D/E 2.06 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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 PAHC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.6 points in favor of PAHC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueABBV 19.4 · PAHC 71.7PAHC +52.3
QualityABBV 83.7 · PAHC 61.2ABBV +22.5
GrowthABBV 77.4 · PAHC 80.6PAHC +3.2
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 PAHC or ABBV the better stock?
PAHC scores higher: PAHC 70.7, 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 PAHC and ABBV differ most?
The widest gap is value, where PAHC leads by 52 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 PAHC 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.