HLN vs LLY Stock Comparison
Compare HLN and LLY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HLN and LLY?
HLN leads the current stock comparison as Haleon plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Haleon plc vs Eli Lilly and Company
HLN leads
HLN leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from LLY. Wall Street currently favors LLY on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HLN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Haleon plc
Eli Lilly and Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLN over LLY, 49 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. HLN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while LLY holds the stronger quality profile. HLN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LLY. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HLN lead: Reversed — LLY led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 7.
Compare Haleon plc and Eli Lilly and Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare HLN and LLY against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value56 vs 26HLN +30
- Quality62 vs 76LLY +14
- Momentum25 vs 15HLN +10
- Risk Resilience49 vs 49Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HLN. HLN’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; LLY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
HLN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HLN and LLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLN (Haleon plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
LLY (Eli Lilly and Company): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 30.2% against 21.8%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
HLNHLN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LLYLLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HLNHLN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
HLNHLN on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
HLNHLN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LLYLLY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HLN, analyst targets favor LLY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HLN | LLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +19.6% | LLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HLN | 49 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | LLY | TTM ROE 9.9% vs 92.6%; gross margin 65.6% vs 84%; operating margin 21.4% vs 43.9% |
| Valuation | HLN | Value 56 vs 26 |
| Technicals | LLY | Price vs 50-day -6.8% vs -5.9%; vs 200-day -6.3% vs 5.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | LLY | Target upside 11% vs 19.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HLN and LLY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on HLN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HLN lead: Reversed — LLY led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 7.
- Today
- HLN +7
- 49 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- HLN +9
- 53 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +4
- 56 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- HLN +1
- 62 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when HLN moved ahead of LLY.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.18%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.42%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
HLN leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.33%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1LLY closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLN's edge.
- 2LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3HLN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
LLY leads on balance| Metric | HLN | LLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 16% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -3.9% |
| Gross margin | 65.6% | 84% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 43.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.9% | 92.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.5 | 1.62 |
Performance
LLY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HLN | LLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | -8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | 12.3% |
| Year to date | -8.8% | 4.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.3% | 52% |
Technicals
LLY has the stronger structure| Metric | HLN | LLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.2 | 17.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.4 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.8% | -5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.3% | 5.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.8% | 30.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HLN | LLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.07 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.3 | 1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.49 | 2.28 |
| Max drawdown | -22.8% | -23.3% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -12.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.1% | 35.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HLN or LLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against LLY's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. LLY is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is HLN or LLY the better buy right now?
HLN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLN over LLY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLN leads Value by 30 points; LLY leads Quality by 14 points; HLN leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HLN or LLY?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for HLN and +19.6% for LLY, so the Street currently favors LLY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HLN. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, HLN or LLY?
HLN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HLN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, HLN or LLY?
LLY on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, HLN or LLY?
HLN on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, HLN or LLY?
HLN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HLN more profitable than LLY?
LLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.6% vs 84%; operating margin 21.4% vs 43.9%; ttm roe 9.9% vs 92.6%.
Is HLN's lead over LLY getting stronger or weaker?
HLN lead: Reversed — LLY led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 7. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when HLN moved ahead of LLY.
What would change the HLN vs LLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LLY closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLN's edge; LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; HLN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about HLN and LLY?
HLN: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LLY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on HLN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LLY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HLN and LLY with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.