Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
Signals align: quality at a discount to the sector
4 of 5 met · composite above the peer average
Business quality, valuation against the sector, and position in the 52-week range — whether they line up or not.
Strong fundamentals
Profitability
4/4
Debt & liquidity
2/3
Efficiency
2/2
Profitability and cash generation stand well above the sector. Operating margin sits at 34.0%, +78% richer than the median, while ROIC of 23.4% runs +101% ahead. EPS growth of 1,684.2% towers over the sector median of 7.3%, and the F-Score of 8/9 reflects strong fundamentals — long-term debt is under control and profitability rests on genuine cash flow rather than accounting sleight. Revenue growth, however, lags at 2.4% against a sector median of 5.9%, a gap that has widened. Valuation reflects this split: the P/E of 18.5× sits below the sector median of 27.6×, offering a discount to quality. The forward PEG reads as stretched, and consensus models earnings growth that outpaces the realized three-year CAGR from SEC filings — a gap typical of analyst optimism. The company trades as a quality business at a lower price, yet the revenue stall deserves close watch.
| Ticker | Name | F-Score | ROE | Revenue YoY | Op. margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABBV | AbbVie | 8/9 | 15 367% |
Quarter-by-quarter classification · a retrospective read by the current logic · not a price forecast
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. The method did not see these quarters in real time; this is the current logic applied to past reports.
The market prices in an earnings decline; analyst sentiment is steady; has mostly beaten consensus.
Price against next year's expected earnings. The forward P/E already carries analyst optimism — read it alongside the “Versus consensus” line.
A forward P/E below the current one means the market expects earnings to grow; above it, to fall. The historical growth is realized figures from SEC filings, not a forecast.
The three-month change in the share of positive analyst ratings. This is sentiment, not an earnings-estimate revision, and not a call to act.
Gilead's 5.86% YoY revenue growth trails the sector median by 59%, yet EPS grew 7.32% and operating margin sits at 19.1%. On July 30, focus on whether top-line growth stabilizes or accelerates—check management's commentary on product uptake, pipeline progression, and geographic performance. This will clarify whether margin strength is sustainable or dependent on cost discipline alone.
With an F-Score of 8/9 and ROIC at 11.6% (2.0× the sector median), Gilead's fundamentals are solid, but the P/B of 6.09× (22% above median) warrants scrutiny. Review the risk factors section for patent expirations, regulatory hurdles, and R&D spending efficiency. Cross-check the management discussion for how the company plans to sustain profitability as older products mature.
Select two or three companies from the same-sector table and line up their YoY revenue growth, operating margin, and ROIC against Gilead's 5.86%, 19.1%, and 11.6% respectively. This will show whether Gilead's slower revenue growth is a sector-wide trend or company-specific, and whether its margin leadership reflects operational excellence or a different business mix.
Steps you can check yourself, based on the figures in this brief.
Piotroski F-Score: nine binary tests of financial strength from the annual report. A ✓ marks a test passed, a dot (·) a test failed.
Over 4 years: -23%-11%+39%-8%
Over 4 years: 3.002.9112.192.13
Over 4 years: -0%-1%+6%+2%
The context on the right shows how each figure compares with the sector median. The trend below tracks the change over recent fiscal years.
Beat consensus in 8 of 8 recent quarters — the company clears estimates regularly (consensus is often set conservatively).
Last quarter's EPS against consensus, plus the estimated date of the next report.
| +9% |
| 25% |
| ABT | Abbott | 6/9 | 13% | +6% | 18% |
| AMGN | Amgen | 7/9 | 106% | +10% | 25% |
| BMY | Bristol-Myers Squibb | 8/9 | 41% | -0% | — |
| CVS | CVS Health | 7/9 | 2% | +8% | 1% |
| DHR | Danaher | 5/9 | 7% | +3% | 19% |
| GILD | Gilead Sciences, Inc. | 8/9 | 40% | +2% | 34% |
| ISRG | Intuitive Surgical | 6/9 | 17% | +21% | 29% |
| JNJ | Johnson & Johnson | 4/9 | 35% | +6% | — |
| LLY | Eli Lilly | 7/9 | 101% | +45% | — |
| MRK | Merck | 4/9 | 37% | +1% | — |
| PFE | Pfizer | 5/9 | 9% | -2% | — |
| TMO | Thermo Fisher | 5/9 | 13% | +4% | 17% |
| UNH | UnitedHealth | 7/9 | 18% | +12% | 4% |
A sample of 14 companies in the sector including the target, alphabetical, unranked. Data from the latest SEC annual reports.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
A simplified retrospective read: no analyst forecast (not available historically); the source is the annual report as of the date, so neighbouring quarters can rest on the same data. Quarters with the same classification in a row are merged into one row — each row is one change in the read, not a separate quarter. One ticker is an illustration of the classification logic, not statistics. How we calculate →
The last few quarters are recent context, not a fixed rate. Consensus for near quarters is set low, so companies clear it routinely; over long horizons the forecasts run the other way, too high.
A description of what the market and analysts expect. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. Analyst forecasts run systematically optimistic over long horizons — read them with that discount.