Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ALNY scored 75.2, INVA scored 76.1 — INVA leads.
Compare another set
ALNY
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
75.2
$232.68 · $31.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.9
INVA leads
INVA
Innoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · Quality-Growth
76.1
$21.21 · $1.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINVA5.0x
Fastest growthALNY+65.2%
Strongest balance sheetINVA0.27
Highest qualityINVA67 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueINVA-54%
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
INVA
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
67
99
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
71
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
92
ALNY and INVA split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ALNY
INVA
$820mC+
FCF
$189mC
+65.2%A
Rev
+18.8%B+
2.21D
D/E
0.27B
39.2xC+
P/E
5.0xA
0.29A
PEG
3.12D
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
INVA
63% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% below
~28%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-11%/yr
-53%
1-yr DCF upside
+97%
-39%
5-yr DCF upside
+117%
-10%
10-yr DCF upside
+150%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ALNY
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
INVA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
INVAInnoviva, Inc.
Biotechnology · $21.21 · beta 0.38
Why now
Biotechnology · market cap $1.5b. 16% off the 52-week high of $25.15. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. 5 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $35.00 (implying +65% upside).
Moat
Net margin 81% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 29% — 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
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 INVA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.9 points in favor of INVA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueALNY 63.8 · INVA 91.9INVA +28.1
GrowthALNY 99.0 · INVA 71.2ALNY +27.8
QualityALNY 67.3 · INVA 67.4level
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 INVA or ALNY the better stock?
INVA scores higher: INVA 76.1, 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 INVA and ALNY differ most?
The widest gap is value, where INVA leads by 28 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 INVA 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.