Biotechnology
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Drug Manufacturers - General
Drug Manufacturers - General
Biotechnology
Drug Manufacturers - General
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General | Drug Manufacturers - General | Biotechnology | Drug Manufacturers - General |
| Market Cap | $7.43B | $208.86B | $935.25B | $3.63B | $367.80B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $327.80B | $72.25B | $0.00 | $61.16B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-314M | $121.96B | $25.27B | $-472M | $4.23B |
| Gross Margin | — | 81.8% | 83.5% | — | 70.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | 45.3% | 45.9% | — | 26.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 2.2x | 27.4x | — | 14.6x |
| Total Debt | $10M | $130.96B | $42.50B | $137K | $69.07B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $352M | $26.46B | $7.16B | $166M | $5.23B |
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) | 100 | 142.6 | +42.6% |
| Eli Lilly and Compa… (LLY) | 100 | 647.2 | +547.2% |
| Viking Therapeutics… (VKTX) | 100 | 438.0 | +338.0% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 224.4 | +124.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MTSR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.35, Low D/E 3.4%, current ratio 5.34x
- +167.2% vs NVO's -28.0%
NVO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.11 vs LLY's 0.95
- Better valuation composite
- 37.2% margin vs MTSR's 1.3%
- 3.9% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs ABBV's 3.2%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
LLY ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 44.7%, EPS growth 96.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 31.7%
- 44.7% revenue growth vs VKTX's -270.1%
VKTX is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 24.7% 10Y total return vs LLY's 12.5%
ABBV is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.28, yield 3.2%
- Beta 0.28, yield 3.2%, current ratio 0.67x
- Beta 0.28 vs VKTX's 1.54
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 44.7% revenue growth vs VKTX's -270.1% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 37.2% margin vs MTSR's 1.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.28 vs VKTX's 1.54 | |
| Dividends | 3.9% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs ABBV's 3.2%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +167.2% vs NVO's -28.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 23.3% ROA vs VKTX's -65.3%, ROIC 36.2% vs -44.4% |
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LLY leads in 2 of 6 categories
NVO leads 1 • MTSR leads 1 • VKTX leads 0 • ABBV leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LLY leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NVO and VKTX operate at a comparable scale, with $327.8B and $0 in trailing revenue. NVO is the more profitable business, keeping 37.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ABBV's 6.9%. On growth, LLY holds the edge at +55.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $327.8B | $72.2B | $0 | $61.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$337M | $170.2B | $34.7B | -$502M | $24.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$314M | $122.0B | $25.3B | -$472M | $4.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$232M | $31.0B | $13.6B | -$340M | $18.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +81.8% | +83.5% | — | +70.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +45.3% | +45.9% | — | +26.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +37.2% | +35.0% | — | +6.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +9.5% | +18.8% | — | +30.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +24.0% | +55.5% | — | +10.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +49.5% | +67.1% | +169.9% | -2.3% | +57.4% |
Valuation Metrics
NVO leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.0x trailing earnings, NVO trades at a 85% valuation discount to ABBV's 87.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), NVO offers better value at 0.63x vs LLY's 1.50x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7.4B | $208.9B | $935.2B | $3.6B | $367.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.1B | $225.3B | $970.6B | $3.5B | $431.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -34.73x | 12.97x | 43.13x | -9.82x | 87.74x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 2.17x | 27.45x | — | 14.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.63x | 1.50x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.57x | 31.05x | — | 15.29x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 4.29x | 14.35x | — | 6.01x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 25.28x | 6.85x | 33.50x | 5.52x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 45.78x | 104.24x | — | 20.64x |
Profitability & Efficiency
LLY leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-93 for MTSR. VKTX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LLY's 1.60x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), LLY scores 8/9 vs VKTX's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -93.2% | +66.4% | +101.2% | -71.3% | +62.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -55.4% | +23.3% | +22.7% | -65.3% | +3.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +36.2% | +41.8% | -44.4% | +23.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -84.5% | +44.4% | +46.6% | -51.8% | +21.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.03x | 0.67x | 1.60x | 0.00x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$343M | $104.5B | $35.3B | -$166M | $63.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $352M | $26.5B | $7.2B | $166M | $5.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10M | $131.0B | $42.5B | $137,000 | $69.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2591.91x | 18.90x | 35.68x | -15687.44x | 3.28x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MTSR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in VKTX five years ago would be worth $52,905 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,519 for NVO. Over the past 12 months, MTSR leads with a +167.2% total return vs NVO's -28.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MTSR at 38.6% vs NVO's -15.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | — | -8.0% | -8.2% | -11.6% | -7.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +167.2% | -28.0% | +31.8% | +10.7% | +12.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +166.0% | -40.3% | +131.6% | +39.0% | +54.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +166.0% | +35.2% | +424.7% | +429.1% | +107.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +166.0% | +106.4% | +1250.1% | +2467.2% | +311.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +38.6% | -15.8% | +32.3% | +11.6% | +15.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — LLY and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than VKTX's 1.54 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. LLY currently trades 87.3% from its 52-week high vs NVO's 57.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.35x | 1.52x | 0.65x | 1.54x | 0.28x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $83.86 | $81.44 | $1133.95 | $43.15 | $244.81 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $22.25 | $35.12 | $623.78 | $22.96 | $176.57 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +84.1% | +57.7% | +87.3% | +72.6% | +84.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.1 | 75.1 | 55.8 | 45.3 | 44.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 0 | 17.7M | 2.5M | 2.3M | 5.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NVO and ABBV each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MTSR as "Buy", NVO as "Buy", LLY as "Buy", VKTX as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 221.7% upside for VKTX (target: $101) vs -21.3% for MTSR (target: $56). For income investors, NVO offers the higher dividend yield at 3.90% vs LLY's 0.61%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $55.50 | $47.00 | $1261.11 | $100.75 | $256.69 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 39 | 45 | 24 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.9% | +0.6% | — | +3.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 8 | 11 | — | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $11.64 | $6.00 | — | $6.57 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.1% | +0.4% | 0.0% | +0.3% |
LLY leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). NVO leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
MTSR vs NVO vs LLY vs VKTX vs ABBV: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) is the stronger pick with 44.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 4% for Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO). Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) offers the better valuation at 13. 0x trailing P/E (2. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Metsera, Inc. (MTSR) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
On trailing P/E, Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) is the cheapest at 13.
0x versus AbbVie Inc. at 87. 7x. On forward P/E, Novo Nordisk A/S is actually cheaper at 2. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Novo Nordisk A/S wins at 0. 11x versus Eli Lilly and Company's 0. 95x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
Over the past 5 years, Viking Therapeutics, Inc.
(VKTX) delivered a total return of +429. 1%, compared to +35. 2% for Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: VKTX returned +24. 7% versus NVO's +106. 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 — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 28β versus Viking Therapeutics, Inc. 's 1. 54β — meaning VKTX is approximately 457% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Viking Therapeutics, Inc. (VKTX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 160% for Eli Lilly and Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) is pulling ahead at 44.
7% versus 6. 4% for Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Eli Lilly and Company grew EPS 96. 0% year-over-year, compared to -215. 8% for Viking Therapeutics, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, LLY leads at 31. 7% 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 — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) is the more profitable company, earning 33.
1% net margin versus 0. 0% for Viking Therapeutics, Inc. — meaning it keeps 33. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LLY leads at 45. 6% versus 0. 0% for VKTX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LLY leads at 83. 8%, 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 MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV 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, Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 11x versus Eli Lilly and Company's 0. 95x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) trades at 2. 2x forward P/E versus 27. 4x for Eli Lilly and Company — 25. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for VKTX: 221. 7% to $100. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV?
In this comparison, NVO (3.
9% yield), ABBV (3. 2% yield), LLY (0. 6% yield) pay a dividend. MTSR, VKTX do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is MTSR or NVO or LLY or VKTX or ABBV better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
65), 0. 6% yield, +1250% 10Y return). Viking Therapeutics, Inc. (VKTX) carries a higher beta of 1. 54 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LLY: +1250%, VKTX: +24. 7%), 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 MTSR and NVO and LLY and VKTX and ABBV?
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: MTSR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NVO is a large-cap deep-value stock; LLY is a large-cap high-growth stock; VKTX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock. NVO, LLY, ABBV pay a dividend while MTSR, VKTX 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.