Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NBIX scored 87.2, ZTS scored 55.5 — NBIX leads.
Compare another set
NBIX
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
87.2
$142.44 · $14.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
31.7
NBIX leads
ZTS
Zoetis Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
55.5
$74.81 · $30.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZTS12.3x
Fastest growthNBIX+34.4%
Strongest balance sheetNBIX0.12
Highest qualityZTS89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueZTS-25%
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)
NBIX
stronger →← stronger
ZTS
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
96
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
35
86
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
NBIX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NBIX
ZTS
$870mC+
FCF
$2.3bB
+34.4%A
Rev
+1.5%C
0.12B+
D/E
2.94D
20.9xB+
P/E
12.3xA
0.28A
PEG
6.80D
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
NBIX
ZTS
24% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
25% below
~7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-4%/yr
+5%
1-yr DCF upside
+37%
+32%
5-yr DCF upside
+32%
+85%
10-yr DCF upside
+27%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
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.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · market cap $30.9b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $148.30 — deep drawdown territory. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $96.00 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 27% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 83% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. 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
D/E 2.94 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 50% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. 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 NBIX and ZTS diverge
On the headline score the gap is 31.7 points in favor of NBIX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthNBIX 95.9 · ZTS 34.9NBIX +61.0
ValueNBIX 86.0 · ZTS 55.0NBIX +31.0
QualityNBIX 80.5 · ZTS 89.1ZTS +8.6
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 ZTS the better stock?
NBIX scores higher: NBIX 87.2, ZTS 55.5 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 ZTS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where NBIX leads by 61 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are NBIX and ZTS 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.