Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. JNJ scored 47.0, LLY scored 77.3 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
JNJ
Johnson & Johnson
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
47
$261.44 · $630.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.3
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
CheapestJNJ30.3x
Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
Strongest balance sheetJNJ0.58
Highest qualityJNJ80 / 100
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)
JNJ
stronger →← stronger
LLY
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
54
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
24
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
LLY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
JNJ
LLY
$22.2bA
FCF
$13.6bA-
+6.0%C+
Rev
+49.6%A
0.58B
D/E
1.62C
30.3xB
P/E
39.6xC+
2.69C
PEG
1.13B+
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
JNJ
LLY
82% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
234% above
~20%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
-47%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
-45%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
-43%
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
JNJ
Why this score
Durable high returns
LLY
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
JNJJohnson & Johnson
Drug Manufacturers - General · $261.44 · beta 0.21
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $630.0b. 7% off the 52-week high of $281.07. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $279.82 (implying +7% 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 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 30x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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.
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 JNJ and LLY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.3 points in favor of LLY. The widest single difference is Growth, where LLY leads by 42.8 points.
GrowthJNJ 54.2 · LLY 97.0LLY +42.8
ValueJNJ 23.9 · LLY 60.1LLY +36.2
QualityJNJ 79.9 · LLY 79.2level
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 JNJ the better stock?
LLY scores higher: LLY 77.3, JNJ 47.0 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 JNJ differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LLY leads by 43 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. LLY also leads value, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are LLY and JNJ 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.