LLY vs UNH Stock Comparison
Eli Lilly and Company vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
UNH leads
UNH leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from LLY.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UNH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eli Lilly and Company
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNH over LLY, 48 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. UNH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while LLY holds the stronger quality profile. UNH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. UNH lead: Reversed — LLY led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 5.
Compare Eli Lilly and Company and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Quality30%76 vs 44LLY +32
- Value30%25 vs 53UNH +28
- Momentum25%23 vs 39UNH +16
- Risk Resilience15%45 vs 60UNH +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UNH. UNH’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; LLY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
UNH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
LLY (Eli Lilly and Company): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 38.3% against 20.6%.
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
UNHUNH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LLYLLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UNHUNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
UNHUNH on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | LLY | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.9% | +17% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 18 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UNH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNH | 43 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | LLY | EPS growth -3.9% vs -12.3%; ROE 92.6% vs 14.4%; gross margin 84% vs 22.5%; operating margin 43.9% vs 4.8% |
| Valuation | UNH | Value 25 vs 53 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day 9.1% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 45 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 13.9% vs 17% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LLY and UNH 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 narrow at 5 points. (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 UNH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1UNH lead: Reversed — LLY led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 5.
- Today
- UNH +5
- 43 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- UNH +3
- 45 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +13
- 56 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- UNH +3
- 55 vs 58
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when UNH 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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.86%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UNH 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 +0.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.07%, 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 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge.
- 2LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | -12.3% |
| Gross margin | 84% | 22.5% |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity | 92.6% | 14.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | 0.7 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | LLY | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40 | 39.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 20.6% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.35 | 0.79 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.58 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -9.7% | -10.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 35.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LLY or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 48 against LLY's 43. 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 LLY or UNH the better buy right now?
UNH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UNH over LLY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LLY leads Quality by 32 points; UNH leads Value by 28 points; UNH leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +13.9% upside for LLY and +17% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, LLY or UNH?
UNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 UNH?
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 UNH?
UNH on the Momentum factor, by 16 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LLY more profitable than UNH?
LLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84% vs 22.5%; operating margin 43.9% vs 4.8%; roe 92.6% vs 14.4%.
Is UNH's lead over LLY getting stronger or weaker?
UNH lead: Reversed — LLY led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UNH now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when UNH moved ahead of LLY.
What would change the LLY vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LLY closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNH's edge; LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; UNH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about LLY and UNH?
LLY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. UNH: 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 UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LLY and UNH with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.