Eli Lilly vs Procter & Gamble
LLY and PG side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LLY and PG compare
Eli Lilly is the larger company, worth 3.6 times as much as Procter & Gamble ($1.3T against $376B).
On earnings, Procter & Gamble is cheaper: it trades at 24.4× trailing earnings, against 46.0× for Eli Lilly.
Eli Lilly grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (45.5% versus 3.3% for Procter & Gamble).
Eli Lilly keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 31.9% compared with 18.4% at Procter & Gamble.
Both pay dividends: Eli Lilly yields 0.47% and Procter & Gamble 2.0%.
Eli Lilly scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 12 for Procter & Gamble), 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 | LLY | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.3T | $376B |
| Share price | $1417.54 | $161.57 |
| Change, 1 year | 74.2% | 8.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 435% | 10.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 50K | 104K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 46.0× | 24.4× (better) |
| P/S | 15.4× | 4.3× (better) |
| P/B | 33.1× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 37.3× | 17.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 24.8× |
| PEG | 0.93 (better) | 6.24 |
| FCF yield | – | 4.0% |
| Fair value | $1125.50 | $153.13 |
| Margin of safety | −25.9% | −5.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 45.5% (better) | 3.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 21.6% (better) | 2.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.8% (better) | 0.45% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.7% (better) | 1.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 27.6% (better) | 3.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 83.6% (better) | 50.2% |
| Operating margin | – | 22.7% |
| Net margin | 31.9% (better) | 18.4% |
| FCF margin | – | 17.4% |
| Return on equity | 86.1% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.23 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.21 | 1.06 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.39 (better) | 0.68 |
| Altman Z-score | 8.52 (better) | 5.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.47% | 2.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 21.7% | 63.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 (better) | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.2% (better) | 5.6% |
| Buyback yield | 0.44% | 1.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.91% | 3.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.7% | 70.3% |
| Held by insiders | 10.4% | 0.06% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.3B | −$62.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.83% | 1.1% |
Go deeper
- LLY stock overview
- LLY income statement
- LLY valuation and score
- PG stock overview
- PG income statement
- PG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.