AbbVie vs Eli Lilly
ABBV and LLY side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ABBV and LLY compare
Eli Lilly is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as AbbVie ($1.3T against $521B).
On earnings, Eli Lilly is cheaper: it trades at 46.0× trailing earnings, against 83.3× for AbbVie.
Eli Lilly grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (45.5% versus 10.4% for AbbVie).
Eli Lilly keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 31.9% compared with 9.8% at AbbVie.
Both pay dividends: AbbVie yields 2.3% and Eli Lilly 0.47%.
Eli Lilly scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 10 for AbbVie), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ABBV | LLY |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $521B | $1.3T |
| Share price | $294.89 | $1417.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.0% | 74.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 152% | 435% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.29 | 0.52 |
| Employees | 57K | 50K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 83.3× | 46.0× (better) |
| P/S | 8.1× (better) | 15.4× |
| P/B | – | 33.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | 34.7× (better) | 37.3× |
| P/FCF | 28.6× | – |
| PEG | – | 0.93 |
| FCF yield | 3.5% | – |
| Fair value | $152.33 | $1125.50 |
| Margin of safety | −93.6% | −25.9% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.4% | 45.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 21.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 67.7% (better) | 49.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 68.6% (better) | 50.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −2.8% | 27.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 71.5% | 83.6% (better) |
| Operating margin | 26.2% | – |
| Net margin | 9.8% | 31.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 28.3% | – |
| Return on equity | – | 86.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 20.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.23 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.81 | 1.21 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.8× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.81 | 1.39 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.86 | 8.52 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.47% |
| Payout ratio | 190% | 21.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 (better) | 9 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 6.6% | 15.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.29% | 0.44% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.6% (better) | 0.91% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 75.6% | 83.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.09% | 10.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.9M (better) | −$2.3B |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.92% | 0.83% |
Go deeper
- ABBV stock overview
- ABBV income statement
- ABBV valuation and score
- LLY stock overview
- LLY income statement
- LLY valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.