LLY vs JNJ Stock Comparison
LLY currently leads JNJ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while JNJ has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between LLY and JNJ?
LLY leads the current stock comparison as Eli Lilly and Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Eli Lilly and Company vs Johnson & Johnson
LLY leads
LLY leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JNJ on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LLY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eli Lilly and Company
Johnson & Johnson
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LLY over JNJ, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. LLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while JNJ holds the stronger value profile. LLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JNJ. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LLY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eli Lilly and Company and Johnson & Johnson across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LLY and JNJ 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.
- Momentum95 vs 44LLY +51
- Value26 vs 39JNJ +13
- Quality76 vs 71LLY +5
- Risk Resilience50 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LLY. LLY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; JNJ keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
LLY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and JNJ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LLY (Eli Lilly and Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
LLYLLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LLYLLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JNJJNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
LLYLLY on the Momentum factor, by 51 points.
Lower downside
JNJJNJ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JNJJNJ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LLY, analyst targets favor JNJ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LLY | JNJ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.5% | +9.4% | JNJ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.2% | +21.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | LLY | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.18% | 5.25% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.960 | $3.980 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.000 | $5.140 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #34 | #240 |
LLY grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.18% a year against JNJ's 5.25%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LLY | 62 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | LLY | EPS growth -3.9% vs -96.2%; TTM ROE 92.6% vs 19.7%; gross margin 84% vs 68.8%; operating margin 43.9% vs 25.7% |
| Valuation | JNJ | Value 26 vs 39 |
| Technicals | LLY | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 18.7% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | JNJ | Target upside 4.5% vs 9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LLY and JNJ 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LLY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LLY +11
- 62 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- LLY +12
- 61 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +6
- 63 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +5
- 51 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when LLY moved ahead of JNJ.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only LLY
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JNJ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
LLY 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.01%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.61%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge.
- 2JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 | LLY | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | 0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | -96.2% |
| Gross margin | 84% | 68.8% |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | 25.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 92.6% | 19.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | 0.58 |
Performance
LLY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LLY | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10% | 4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.7% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.4% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.2% | 14.7% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 25.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 56.7% | 35% |
Technicals
LLY has the stronger structure| Metric | LLY | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.4 | 45.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.7% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.4% | 28.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LLY | JNJ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | 1.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.62 | 2.03 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -11% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 20.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LLY or JNJ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LLY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against JNJ's 51. The edge comes from momentum and quality. JNJ is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 LLY or JNJ the better buy right now?
LLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LLY over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LLY leads Momentum by 51 points; JNJ leads Value by 13 points; LLY leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or JNJ?
Analyst price targets imply +4.5% upside for LLY and +9.4% for JNJ, so the Street currently favors JNJ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LLY. 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, LLY or JNJ?
JNJ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JNJ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, LLY or JNJ?
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, LLY or JNJ?
LLY on the Momentum factor, by 51 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, LLY or JNJ?
JNJ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JNJ 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 LLY more profitable than JNJ?
LLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84% vs 68.8%; operating margin 43.9% vs 25.7%; ttm roe 92.6% vs 19.7%.
Is LLY's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
LLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when LLY moved ahead of JNJ.
What would change the LLY vs JNJ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge; JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; LLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 LLY and JNJ?
LLY: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. JNJ: 1 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 LLY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JNJ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LLY and JNJ 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.