COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
BMY vs GRFS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BMY scored 61.5, GRFS scored 70.9 — GRFS leads.
Compare another set
BMY
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
61.5
$67.28 · $137.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.4
GRFS leads
GRFS
Grifols, S.A.
70.9
$7.99 · $5.4B
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestGRFS10.4x
- Fastest growthGRFS+9.4%
- Strongest balance sheetGRFS1.17
- Highest qualityBMY79 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueGRFS-49%
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
GRFS
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
56
57
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
77
52
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
96
GRFS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BMY
GRFS
$11.4bA-
FCF
$569mC+
+3.1%C+
Rev
+9.4%B
2.02D
D/E
1.17C
14.8xA-
P/E
10.4xA
2.37C
PEG
0.19A
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
GRFS
2% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
49% below
~-2%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
+13%
1-yr DCF upside
+57%
+2%
5-yr DCF upside
+97%
-12%
10-yr DCF upside
+171%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BMY
GRFS
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Foreign reporter (EUR)
The companies
BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Company
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $137.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $68.64 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $66.21 (implying -2% 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 42% — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
D/E 2.02 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trading within 2% 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.
GRFSGrifols, S.A.
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $5.4b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $10.23 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.19 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
FCF converts 108% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. 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
Net margin 3.0% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 2% 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. 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 GRFS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.4 points in favor of GRFS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueBMY 51.5 · GRFS 96.3GRFS +44.8
- QualityBMY 78.9 · GRFS 56.1BMY +22.8
- GrowthBMY 57.2 · GRFS 77.0GRFS +19.8
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.