Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GILD scored 37.3, LLY scored 77.3 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
GILD
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
37.3
$151.17 · $187.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
40.0
LLY leads
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
77.3
$1,179.27 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
Strongest balance sheetLLY1.62
Highest qualityLLY79 / 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
LLY
42
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
47
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
26
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
LLY is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GILD
LLY
$12.9bA-
FCF
$13.6bA-
+5.5%C+
Rev
+49.6%A
2.23D
D/E
1.62C
6.2xC+
P/S
—
2.19C
PEG
1.13B+
—
P/E
39.6xC+
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
LLY
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
234% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
+3%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
+4%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
+6%
10-yr DCF upside
-56%
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.
LLY
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
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.
LLYEli Lilly and Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · $1,179.27 · beta 0.45
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $1.1T. 9% off the 52-week high of $1292.65. Revenue growing +50% — in hypergrowth territory. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,330 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 79% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $1.1T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 13.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. 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 LLY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 40.0 points in favor of LLY. The widest single difference is Growth, where LLY leads by 49.6 points.
GrowthGILD 47.4 · LLY 97.0LLY +49.6
QualityGILD 41.5 · LLY 79.2LLY +37.7
ValueGILD 26.3 · LLY 60.1LLY +33.8
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 LLY or GILD the better stock?
LLY scores higher: LLY 77.3, 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 LLY and GILD differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LLY leads by 50 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. LLY leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are LLY 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.