Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ZTS scored 55.5, LLY scored 77.3 — LLY leads.
Compare another set
ZTS
Zoetis Inc.
Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic · Quality-Growth
55.5
$74.81 · $30.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.8
LLY leads
LLY
Eli Lilly and Company
Drug Manufacturers - General · Quality-Growth
77.3
$1,179.27 · $1.1T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZTS12.3x
Fastest growthLLY+49.6%
Strongest balance sheetLLY1.62
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)
ZTS
stronger →← stronger
LLY
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
35
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
LLY is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ZTS
LLY
$2.3bB
FCF
$13.6bA-
+1.5%C
Rev
+49.6%A
2.94D
D/E
1.62C
12.3xA
P/E
39.6xC+
6.80D
PEG
1.13B+
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
ZTS
LLY
25% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
234% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~48%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
+32%
5-yr DCF upside
-70%
+27%
10-yr DCF upside
-56%
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.
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.
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.
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 ZTS and LLY diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.8 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.
GrowthZTS 34.9 · LLY 97.0LLY +62.1
QualityZTS 89.1 · LLY 79.2ZTS +9.9
ValueZTS 55.0 · LLY 60.1LLY +5.1
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 ZTS the better stock?
LLY scores higher: LLY 77.3, 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 LLY and ZTS differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LLY leads by 62 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 LLY 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.