COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
LLY vs MRK
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LLY scored 69.8, MRK scored 37.3 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
69.8
$1,246.93 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
32.5
LLY leads
MRK
Merck & Co., Inc.
37.3
$150.66 · $371.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestLLY42.2x
- Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
- Strongest balance sheetMRK1.28
- Highest qualityLLY73 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueMRK-1%
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
MRK
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
97
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
48
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
17
LLY is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LLY
MRK
$13.6bA-
FCF
$16.1bA-
+49.6%A
Rev
+4.6%C+
1.62C
D/E
1.28C
42.2xC
P/E
121.5xD
1.58C+
PEG
10.47D
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
MRK
111% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1% below
~33%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~14%/yr
-64%
1-yr DCF upside
-23%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
+1%
-27%
10-yr DCF upside
+52%
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
MRK
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.
MRKMerck & Co., Inc.
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $371.7b. Trading near 52-week high of $154.49 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $147.77 (implying -2% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong. $371.7b 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. 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
Trailing P/E 121.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 4.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 MRK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 32.5 points in favor of LLY. The widest single difference is Growth, where LLY leads by 48.8 points.
- GrowthLLY 97.0 · MRK 48.2LLY +48.8
- ValueLLY 48.0 · MRK 16.6LLY +31.4
- QualityLLY 73.0 · MRK 64.8LLY +8.2
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.