Eli Lilly and Company holds the cleaner structural position, with profitability as the main driver and stability adding further support. AstraZeneca still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Eli Lilly and Company is in better shape — its trend is intact while AstraZeneca's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Eli Lilly and Company's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Peer scores are normalised within each company's primary universe (AZN.L: STOXX 600, LLY: S&P 500).
Most of the separation is still concentrated in profitability. Eli Lilly and Company leads by 13 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Drug Manufacturers - General
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AZN.L and LLY share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and Company each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Eli Lilly and Company occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although AstraZeneca PLC still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The profitability lead is mainly driven by a 31-point operating margin advantage.
AstraZeneca PLC still carries lower volatility exposure — that difference is real enough to prevent the comparison from becoming one-sided.
The profitability lead is clear, but pricing and stability still pull in the other direction — the result holds, but not without friction.
Break down the AZN.L vs LLY comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AZN.L and LLY each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.