Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GSK scored 54.2, NBIX scored 87.2 — NBIX leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. NBIX's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but GSK'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.
GSK
GSK plc
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
54.2
$46.50 · $93.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
33.0
NBIX leads
NBIX
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
87.2
$142.44 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGSK14.7x
Fastest growthNBIX+34.4%
Strongest balance sheetNBIX0.12
Highest qualityGSK85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueNBIX-24%
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)
GSK
stronger →← stronger
NBIX
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
48
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
45
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
86
NBIX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GSK
NBIX
$7.1bB+
FCF
$870mC+
+4.1%C+
Rev
+34.4%A
1.06C
D/E
0.12B+
14.7xA-
P/E
20.9xB+
5.65D
PEG
0.28A
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
GSK
NBIX
12% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% below
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
+13%
1-yr DCF upside
+5%
+14%
5-yr DCF upside
+32%
+15%
10-yr DCF upside
+85%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GSK
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (GBP)
NBIX
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
GSKGSK plc
Drug Manufacturers - General · $46.50 · beta 0.28
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $93.2b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $61.70 — deep drawdown territory. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $60.51 (implying +30% 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 39% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 111% 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.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · market cap $14.5b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $186.12 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +34% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.28 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $207.29 (implying +46% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 123% 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 GSK and NBIX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 33.0 points in favor of NBIX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthGSK 48.1 · NBIX 95.9NBIX +47.8
ValueGSK 45.2 · NBIX 86.0NBIX +40.8
QualityGSK 85.5 · NBIX 80.5GSK +5.0
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 NBIX or GSK the better stock?
NBIX scores higher: NBIX 87.2, GSK 54.2 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 NBIX and GSK differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where NBIX leads by 48 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 NBIX and GSK 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.