COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
LLY vs NVS
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LLY scored 69.8, NVS scored 53.4 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. LLY's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but NVS'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.
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
69.8
$1,246.93 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.4
LLY leads
NVS
Novartis AG
53.4
$158.02 · $300.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestNVS24.0x
- Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
- Strongest balance sheetNVS1.17
- Highest qualityNVS87 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueNVS-4%
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
NVS
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
97
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
68
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
26
LLY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LLY
NVS
$13.6bA-
FCF
$17.6bA-
+49.6%A
Rev
+8.4%B
1.62C
D/E
1.17C
42.2xC
P/E
24.0xB+
1.58C+
PEG
3.63D
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
NVS
111% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
4% below
~33%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
-64%
1-yr DCF upside
-7%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
+4%
-27%
10-yr DCF upside
+21%
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
LLY
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
NVS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
The companies
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.
NVSNovartis AG
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $300.4b. 7% off the 52-week high of $170.46. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $157.15 (implying -1% upside).
Moat
Net margin 26% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 30% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 126% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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 LLY and NVS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.4 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.
- GrowthLLY 97.0 · NVS 68.3LLY +28.7
- ValueLLY 48.0 · NVS 25.8LLY +22.2
- QualityLLY 73.0 · NVS 86.5NVS +13.5
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.