Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Drug Manufacturers - General
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Distribution
Drug Manufacturers - General
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic | Drug Manufacturers - General | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $421M | $358.42B | $92.15B | $43.59B | $536.23B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $301M | $61.16B | $403.43B | $250.55B | $92.15B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-43M | $4.23B | $4.76B | $1.56B | $25.12B |
| Gross Margin | 65.7% | 70.2% | 3.6% | 3.7% | 68.1% |
| Operating Margin | -9.6% | 26.7% | 1.5% | 0.9% | 26.1% |
| Forward P/E | — | 14.3x | 19.3x | 17.9x | 19.2x |
| Total Debt | $155M | $69.07B | $7.39B | $9.35B | $36.63B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $54M | $5.23B | $5.69B | $3.87B | $24.11B |
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evolus, Inc. (EOLS) | 100 | 139.8 | +39.8% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 218.7 | +118.7% |
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 474.1 | +374.1% |
| Cardinal Health, In… (CAH) | 100 | 338.7 | +238.7% |
| Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) | 100 | 149.6 | +49.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, EOLS doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ABBV ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 3.2% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs JNJ's 2.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
MCK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 16.2%, EPS growth 14.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.8%
- 348.1% 10Y total return vs ABBV's 295.5%
- PEG 0.49 vs JNJ's 34.17
- 16.2% revenue growth vs CAH's -1.9%
CAH is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.03, current ratio 0.94x
- Beta 0.03, yield 1.1%, current ratio 0.94x
- Beta 0.03 vs EOLS's 1.27
JNJ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 36 yrs, beta 0.06, yield 2.2%
- 27.3% margin vs EOLS's -14.4%
- +44.8% vs EOLS's -45.7%
- 13.0% ROA vs EOLS's -19.4%, ROIC 20.7% vs -44.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.2% revenue growth vs CAH's -1.9% | |
| Value | PEG 0.49 vs 34.17 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.3% margin vs EOLS's -14.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.03 vs EOLS's 1.27 | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 13-year raise streak, vs JNJ's 2.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +44.8% vs EOLS's -45.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.0% ROA vs EOLS's -19.4%, ROIC 20.7% vs -44.5% |
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABBV leads in 1 of 6 categories
EOLS leads 0 • MCK leads 0 • CAH leads 0 • JNJ leads 0 • 5 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK is the larger business by revenue, generating $403.4B annually — 1338.5x EOLS's $301M. JNJ is the more profitable business, keeping 27.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to EOLS's -14.4%. On growth, CAH holds the edge at +11.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $301M | $61.2B | $403.4B | $250.5B | $92.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$21M | $24.5B | $6.8B | $3.2B | $31.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$43M | $4.2B | $4.8B | $1.6B | $25.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$41M | $18.7B | $6.0B | $4.4B | $19.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +65.7% | +70.2% | +3.6% | +3.7% | +68.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -9.6% | +26.7% | +1.5% | +0.9% | +26.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -14.4% | +6.9% | +1.2% | +0.6% | +27.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -13.7% | +30.6% | +1.5% | +1.8% | +20.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.2% | +10.0% | +6.0% | +11.0% | +6.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +46.7% | +57.4% | +37.0% | -19.5% | +91.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — ABBV and MCK each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 28.7x trailing earnings, CAH trades at a 66% valuation discount to ABBV's 85.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MCK offers better value at 0.75x vs JNJ's 34.17x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $421M | $358.4B | $92.1B | $43.6B | $536.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $522M | $422.3B | $93.8B | $49.1B | $548.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -7.99x | 85.50x | 29.25x | 28.72x | 38.43x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 14.28x | 19.28x | 17.94x | 19.20x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.75x | — | 34.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 14.96x | 18.74x | 16.01x | 18.61x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.42x | 5.86x | 0.26x | 0.20x | 6.04x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | — | — | — | 7.56x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 20.12x | 17.63x | 23.56x | 27.02x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — EOLS and ABBV and MCK and CAH and JNJ each lead in 2 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $32 for JNJ. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABBV scores 6/9 vs EOLS's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +62.1% | +3.0% | — | +31.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -19.4% | +3.1% | +5.7% | +2.8% | +13.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -44.5% | +23.9% | +5.4% | +33.8% | +20.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -23.5% | +21.5% | +30.5% | +19.2% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | — | — | — | 0.51x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $101M | $63.8B | $1.7B | $5.5B | $12.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $54M | $5.2B | $5.7B | $3.9B | $24.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $155M | $69.1B | $7.4B | $9.3B | $36.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -1.92x | 3.28x | 33.79x | 6.38x | 48.23x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — MCK and CAH and JNJ each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCK five years ago would be worth $38,689 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,991 for EOLS. Over the past 12 months, JNJ leads with a +44.8% total return vs EOLS's -45.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CAH at 31.5% vs EOLS's -10.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -4.9% | -10.1% | -8.5% | -9.5% | +7.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -45.7% | +11.3% | +4.6% | +22.0% | +44.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -28.4% | +50.4% | +106.4% | +127.3% | +46.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -30.1% | +101.3% | +286.9% | +235.7% | +46.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.4% | +295.5% | +348.1% | +160.8% | +132.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -10.6% | +14.6% | +27.3% | +31.5% | +13.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CAH and JNJ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CAH is the less volatile stock with a 0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than EOLS's 1.27 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. JNJ currently trades 88.4% from its 52-week high vs EOLS's 52.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.27x | 0.34x | 0.04x | 0.03x | 0.06x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.16 | $244.81 | $999.00 | $233.60 | $251.71 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $3.86 | $176.57 | $637.00 | $137.75 | $146.12 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +52.5% | +82.8% | +75.3% | +79.3% | +88.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 76.1 | 46.8 | 16.2 | 33.2 | 37.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.1M | 5.8M | 757K | 1.7M | 7.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ABBV and JNJ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EOLS as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy", MCK as "Buy", CAH as "Buy", JNJ as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 134.7% upside for EOLS (target: $15) vs 12.0% for JNJ (target: $249). For income investors, ABBV offers the higher dividend yield at 3.24% vs MCK's 0.36%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $15.00 | $256.64 | $1006.50 | $249.67 | $249.27 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 41 | 31 | 33 | 40 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.2% | +0.4% | +1.1% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 13 | 17 | 20 | 36 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $6.57 | $2.69 | $2.04 | $4.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.3% | +3.4% | +1.8% | +0.5% |
ABBV leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow. 5 categories are tied.
EOLS vs ABBV vs MCK vs CAH vs JNJ: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ a better buy right now?
For growth investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger pick with 16.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH). Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH) offers the better valuation at 28. 7x trailing P/E (17. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Evolus, Inc. (EOLS) a "Buy" — based on 13 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
On trailing P/E, Cardinal Health, Inc.
(CAH) is the cheapest at 28. 7x versus AbbVie Inc. at 85. 5x. On forward P/E, AbbVie Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: McKesson Corporation wins at 0. 49x versus Johnson & Johnson's 34. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +286.
9%, compared to -30. 1% for Evolus, Inc. (EOLS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +348. 1% versus EOLS's -44. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cardinal Health, Inc.
(CAH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 03β versus Evolus, Inc. 's 1. 27β — meaning EOLS is approximately 3648% more volatile than CAH relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is pulling ahead at 16.
2% versus -1. 9% for Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cardinal Health, Inc. grew EPS 87. 0% year-over-year, compared to -57. 8% for Johnson & Johnson. Over a 3-year CAGR, EOLS leads at 26. 0% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
8% net margin versus -17. 4% for Evolus, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABBV leads at 32. 8% versus -12. 7% for EOLS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ABBV leads at 70. 2%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus Johnson & Johnson's 34. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) trades at 14. 3x forward P/E versus 19. 3x for McKesson Corporation — 5. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EOLS: 134. 7% to $15. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ?
In this comparison, ABBV (3.
2% yield), JNJ (2. 2% yield), CAH (1. 1% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. EOLS does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is EOLS or ABBV or MCK or CAH or JNJ better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cardinal Health, Inc.
(CAH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 03), 1. 1% yield, +160. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CAH: +160. 8%, EOLS: -44. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between EOLS and ABBV and MCK and CAH and JNJ?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: EOLS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock; MCK is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CAH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; JNJ is a large-cap quality compounder stock. ABBV, CAH, JNJ pay a dividend while EOLS, MCK do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.