Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AZN scored 72.0, GILD scored 37.3 — AZN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GILD'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.
AZN
AstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
72
$159.20 · $246.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.7
AZN leads
GILD
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
37.3
$151.17 · $187.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthAZN+8.6%
Strongest balance sheetAZN0.64
Highest qualityAZN78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGILD-4%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AZN
stronger →← stronger
GILD
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
42
78
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
47
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
26
AZN is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AZN
GILD
$11.8bA-
FCF
$12.9bA-
+8.6%B
Rev
+5.5%C+
0.64C+
D/E
2.23D
23.8xB+
P/E
—
1.12B+
PEG
2.19C
—
P/S
6.2xC+
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
AZN
GILD
11% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
~12%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~3%/yr
-22%
1-yr DCF upside
+3%
-10%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
+10%
10-yr DCF upside
+6%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AZN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
GILD
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
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.
GILDGilead Sciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · $151.17 · beta 0.33
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $187.4b. 4% off the 52-week high of $157.29. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $159.38 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
$187.4b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition. 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 2.23 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -10.6%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -27% 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.
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 AZN and GILD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.7 points in favor of AZN. The widest single difference is Quality, where AZN leads by 36.3 points.
QualityAZN 77.8 · GILD 41.5AZN +36.3
ValueAZN 61.1 · GILD 26.3AZN +34.8
GrowthAZN 78.5 · GILD 47.4AZN +31.1
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 GILD the better stock?
AZN scores higher: AZN 72.0, GILD 37.3 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 GILD differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where AZN leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. AZN leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are AZN and GILD 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.