Gilead Sciences vs Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
GILD and TEVA side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How GILD and TEVA compare
Gilead Sciences is the larger company, worth 4.4 times as much as Teva Pharmaceutical Industries ($212B against $48.3B).
Gilead Sciences grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.5% versus −15.2% for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries).
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 5.0% compared with −10.6% at Gilead Sciences.
Gilead Sciences pays a dividend yielding 1.9%; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries does not pay one.
Gilead Sciences scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 7 for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries), 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 | GILD | TEVA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $212B | $48.3B |
| Share price | $170.68 | $41.47 |
| Change, 1 year | 44.0% | 110% |
| Change, 5 years | 157% | 354% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.44 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 17K | 34K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 69.1× |
| P/S | 6.9× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/B | 17.9× | 6.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 19.0× |
| P/FCF | 16.4× (better) | 35.8× |
| FCF yield | 6.1% (better) | 2.8% |
| Fair value | $83.31 | $18.65 |
| Margin of safety | −105% (better) | −122% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.5% (better) | −15.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.6% (better) | 0.71% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −151% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −154% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 132% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 79.6% (better) | 64.4% |
| Operating margin | −8.2% | 11.4% (better) |
| Net margin | −10.6% | 5.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 42.5% (better) | 9.6% |
| Return on equity | −20.6% | 9.7% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −5.3% | 23.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.22 | 0.58 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.33 |
| Interest coverage | −2.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.27 (better) | 0.88 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.96 (better) | 0.84 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 | 8 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 11 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.54% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.9% | – |
| Held by insiders | 0.10% | 0.43% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$83.5M (better) | −$113M |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.8% | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- GILD stock overview
- GILD income statement
- GILD valuation and score
- TEVA stock overview
- TEVA income statement
- TEVA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.