Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NVO scored 43.5, AZN scored 72.0 — AZN leads.
Compare another set
NVO
Novo Nordisk A/S
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
43.5
$38.64 · $170.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
28.5
AZN leads
AZN
AstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
72
$159.20 · $246.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNVO9.4x
Fastest growthAZN+8.6%
Strongest balance sheetNVO0.63
Highest qualityNVO89 / 100
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)
NVO
stronger →← stronger
AZN
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
78
22
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
AZN is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NVO
AZN
$7.2bB+
FCF
$11.8bA-
+6.4%C+
Rev
+8.6%B
0.63C+
D/E
0.64C+
9.4xA
P/E
23.8xB+
—
PEG
1.12B+
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
NVO
AZN
51% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
11% above
~16%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~12%/yr
-36%
1-yr DCF upside
-22%
-34%
5-yr DCF upside
-10%
-31%
10-yr DCF upside
+10%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NVO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (DKK)
AZN
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
NVONovo Nordisk A/S
Drug Manufacturers - General · $38.64 · beta 0.38
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $170.6b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $64.16 — deep drawdown territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $46.09 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
Net margin 33% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $170.6b 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.
Risk
Down 40% 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.
AZNAstraZeneca PLC
Drug Manufacturers - General · $159.20 · beta 0.21
Why now
Drug Manufacturers - General · market cap $246.9b. Down 25% from 52-week high of $212.71 — deep drawdown territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $206.91 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 21% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 115% 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
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 NVO and AZN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 28.5 points in favor of AZN. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueNVO 21.5 · AZN 61.1AZN +39.6
GrowthNVO 50.2 · AZN 78.5AZN +28.3
QualityNVO 88.5 · AZN 77.8NVO +10.7
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 AZN or NVO the better stock?
AZN scores higher: AZN 72.0, NVO 43.5 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 AZN and NVO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AZN leads by 40 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 AZN and NVO 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.