Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GILD scored 37.3, KNSA scored 67.1 — KNSA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GILD's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but KNSA's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
GILD
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
37.3
$151.17 · $187.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.8
KNSA leads
KNSA
Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals International, plc
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
67.1
$79.78 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthKNSA+56.7%
Strongest balance sheetKNSA0.01
Highest qualityKNSA64 / 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)
GILD
stronger →← stronger
KNSA
42
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
64
47
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
26
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
KNSA is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GILD
KNSA
$12.9bA-
FCF
$164mC
+5.5%C+
Rev
+56.7%A
2.23D
D/E
0.01A-
6.2xC+
P/S
—
2.19C
PEG
2.03C
—
P/E
79.8xD
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
GILD
KNSA
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
63% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~28%/yr
+3%
1-yr DCF upside
-53%
+4%
5-yr DCF upside
-39%
+6%
10-yr DCF upside
-10%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GILD
No notable signals flagged.
KNSA
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · market cap $6.2b. 4% off the 52-week high of $82.94. Revenue growing +57% — in hypergrowth territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $98.00 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income. 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 79.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. 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 GILD and KNSA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.8 points in favor of KNSA. The widest single difference is Growth, where KNSA leads by 51.6 points.
GrowthGILD 47.4 · KNSA 99.0KNSA +51.6
QualityGILD 41.5 · KNSA 64.0KNSA +22.5
ValueGILD 26.3 · KNSA 47.8KNSA +21.5
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 KNSA or GILD the better stock?
KNSA scores higher: KNSA 67.1, 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 KNSA and GILD differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where KNSA leads by 52 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. KNSA leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are KNSA 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.