Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BMY scored 55.6, AZN scored 72.0 — AZN leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. BMY'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.
BMY
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
55.6
$59.12 · $120.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.4
AZN leads
AZN
AstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
72
$159.20 · $246.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBMY13.0x
Fastest growthAZN+8.6%
Strongest balance sheetAZN0.64
Highest qualityAZN78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueBMY-22%
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)
BMY
stronger →← stronger
AZN
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
28
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
82
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
AZN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BMY
AZN
$11.4bA-
FCF
$11.8bA-
-0.2%D+
Rev
+8.6%B
2.02D
D/E
0.64C+
13.0xA-
P/E
23.8xB+
16.59D
PEG
1.12B+
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
BMY
AZN
22% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~12%/yr
+35%
1-yr DCF upside
-22%
+28%
5-yr DCF upside
-10%
+19%
10-yr DCF upside
+10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BMY
No notable signals flagged.
AZN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · $59.12 · beta 0.18
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $120.8b. 14% off the 52-week high of $68.64. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $65.71 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 47% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 123% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.02 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. 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.
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.
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 BMY and AZN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.4 points in favor of AZN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthBMY 27.9 · AZN 78.5AZN +50.6
ValueBMY 82.3 · AZN 61.1BMY +21.2
QualityBMY 74.8 · AZN 77.8AZN +3.0
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 BMY the better stock?
AZN scores higher: AZN 72.0, BMY 55.6 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 BMY differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where AZN leads by 51 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 AZN and BMY 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.