COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
JNJ vs LLY
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. JNJ scored 45.7, LLY scored 69.8 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
JNJ
Johnson & Johnson
45.7
$273.04 · $658.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
24.1
LLY leads
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
69.8
$1,246.93 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestJNJ31.3x
- Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
- Strongest balance sheetJNJ0.58
- Highest qualityJNJ78 / 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
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
70
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
17
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
48
LLY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
JNJ
LLY
$22.2bA
FCF
$13.6bA-
+8.1%B
Rev
+49.6%A
0.58B
D/E
1.62C
31.3xB
P/E
42.2xC
4.73D
PEG
1.58C+
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
67% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
111% above
~21%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~33%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
-64%
-40%
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
-30%
10-yr DCF upside
-27%
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
The companies
JNJJohnson & Johnson
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $658.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $276.47 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $272.50 (implying -0% 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 25% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 31x 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
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $1.1T. 4% 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 $1,315 (implying +5% 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 42x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 14.0x 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 24.1 points in favor of LLY. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueJNJ 17.4 · LLY 48.0LLY +30.6
- GrowthJNJ 69.8 · LLY 97.0LLY +27.2
- QualityJNJ 78.2 · LLY 73.0JNJ +5.2
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.