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
Get notified when we ship meaningful updates. No spam, no daily noise.
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
Operating margin at 34.0% — +78% above the sector median — anchors a picture of genuine capital efficiency: ROIC runs +101% above the sector median at 23.4%, and EPS grew 1,684.2% against a sector median of 7.3%. The F-Score of 8/9 confirms the underlying strength, with profitability and efficiency sub-scores both full. Revenue growth at 2.4% trails the sector median of 5.9% by -59%, and P/B at 7.3× sits +19% above the sector median — the one valuation signal that cuts against the discount narrative. EV/EBITDA at 18.0× runs -17% below the sector median of 21.6×, which is where the quality-at-a-discount read rests. Consensus aligns with the realized three-year EPS CAGR of {{value:eps_cagr_3y}}, a less common outcome given the systematic optimism that tends to inflate analyst forecasts; the beat rate across eight quarters reinforces that the track record is not a fluke.
| 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.
Priced at 25.3× of expected earnings; 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.
When Gilead reports on October 28, 2026, track revenue growth year over year against the current 5.86% figure — the weakest signal relative to sector peers. Also check whether the 19.1% operating margin holds, given it already sits 78% above the sector median.
Pull Gilead's most recent 10-K on SEC EDGAR and focus on the revenue concentration disclosures — the below-median revenue growth rate of 5.86% warrants scrutiny of pipeline dependency and patent exposure. Cross-reference management's commentary on ROIC sustainability, currently at 11.6%, or roughly 2× the sector median.
From the alphabetical Health Care table in section 06, select two or three companies yourself and line up a single metric — P/B or operating margin are useful starting points given GILD's P/B of 6.12× and its above-median margin. No company in the table is ranked; the exercise is to place GILD's figures in a broader sector context of your own choosing.
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 | 6/9 | 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.