Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ALNY scored 75.2, HALO scored 83.1 — HALO leads.
Compare another set
ALNY
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
75.2
$232.68 · $31.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.9
HALO leads
HALO
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
83.1
$110.42 · $12.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestHALO32.3x
Fastest growthALNY+65.2%
Highest qualityHALO89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueHALO-40%
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)
ALNY
stronger →← stronger
HALO
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
99
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
98
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
66
HALO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ALNY
HALO
$820mC+
FCF
$806mC+
+65.2%A
Rev
+41.2%A
2.21D
D/E
—
39.2xC+
P/E
32.3xC+
0.29A
PEG
1.47B
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
ALNY
HALO
63% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
40% below
~28%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
-53%
1-yr DCF upside
+27%
-39%
5-yr DCF upside
+66%
-10%
10-yr DCF upside
+146%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ALNY
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
HALO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
ALNYAlnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Biotechnology · $232.68 · beta 0.27
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $31.1b. Down 53% from 52-week high of $495.55 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +65% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.29 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $370.55 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 97% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.21 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 53% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
HALOHalozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Biotechnology · $110.42 · beta 0.88
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $12.5b. 6% off the 52-week high of $116.85. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $101.75 (implying -8% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. FCF converts 195% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. 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 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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 ALNY and HALO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.9 points in favor of HALO. The widest single difference is Quality, where HALO leads by 21.6 points.
QualityALNY 67.3 · HALO 88.9HALO +21.6
ValueALNY 63.8 · HALO 65.9level
GrowthALNY 99.0 · HALO 98.0level
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 HALO or ALNY the better stock?
HALO scores higher: HALO 83.1, ALNY 75.2 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 HALO and ALNY differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where HALO leads by 22 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are HALO and ALNY 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.