Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LLY scored 77.3, TAK scored 24.1 — LLY 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
53.2
LLY leads
TAK
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
24.1
$18.73 · $59.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
Strongest balance sheetTAK0.73
Highest qualityLLY79 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
LLY
stronger →← stronger
TAK
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
46
97
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
15
60
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
24
LLY is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LLY
TAK
$13.6bA-
FCF
$3.1bB
+49.6%A
Rev
-1.7%D+
1.62C
D/E
0.73C+
39.6xC+
P/E
—
1.13B+
PEG
0.42A
—
P/S
2.0xB+
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
TAK
234% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% above
~48%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~10%/yr
-77%
1-yr DCF upside
-25%
-70%
5-yr DCF upside
-26%
-56%
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
LLY
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
TAK
Why this score
Foreign reporter (JPY)
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 $59.8b. Trading near 52-week high of $19.10 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. PEG 0.42 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $21.96 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
$59.8b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition. Pharma moat is patent runway + pipeline depth — a single approved molecule funds the next generation of bets. Late-stage trials carry binary readouts that swing valuation 30%+.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -3.5%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. ROE -2% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 TAK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 53.2 points in favor of LLY. The widest single difference is Growth, where LLY leads by 82.3 points.
GrowthLLY 97.0 · TAK 14.7LLY +82.3
ValueLLY 60.1 · TAK 23.9LLY +36.2
QualityLLY 79.2 · TAK 46.3LLY +32.9
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 TAK the better stock?
LLY scores higher: LLY 77.3, TAK 24.1 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 TAK differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LLY leads by 82 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. LLY leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are LLY and TAK 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.