Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LLY scored 77.3, NBIX scored 87.2 — NBIX leads.
Compare another set
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
77.3
$1,179.27 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.9
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
CheapestNBIX20.9x
Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
Strongest balance sheetNBIX0.12
Highest qualityNBIX80 / 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)
LLY
stronger →← stronger
NBIX
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
97
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
86
NBIX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LLY
NBIX
$13.6bA-
FCF
$870mC+
+49.6%A
Rev
+34.4%A
1.62C
D/E
0.12B+
39.6xC+
P/E
20.9xB+
1.13B+
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
LLY
NBIX
234% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% below
~48%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-77%
1-yr DCF upside
+5%
-70%
5-yr DCF upside
+32%
-56%
10-yr DCF upside
+85%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LLY
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
NBIX
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
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
NBIX leads LLY by 13.5 points (88.4 to 74.9), its sharpest advantage coming in D/E (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer LLY for its stronger FCF (grade A-). Note they play different roles — LLY screens as growth, NBIX screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 LLY and NBIX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.9 points in favor of NBIX. The widest single difference is Value, where NBIX leads by 25.9 points.
ValueLLY 60.1 · NBIX 86.0NBIX +25.9
QualityLLY 79.2 · NBIX 80.5level
GrowthLLY 97.0 · NBIX 95.9level
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 LLY the better stock?
NBIX scores higher: NBIX 87.2, LLY 77.3 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 NBIX and LLY differ most?
The widest gap is value, where NBIX leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are NBIX and LLY 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.