LLY vs VUG Stock Comparison
Eli Lilly and Company vs Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
VUG leads
VUG leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VUG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eli Lilly and Company
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VUG over LLY, 58 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. VUG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VUG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VUG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. VUG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eli Lilly and Company and Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF 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.
- Momentum25%23 vs 59VUG +36
- Risk Resilience15%45 vs 75VUG +30
- Value30%25 vs 30VUG +5
- Quality30%76 vs 76Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VUG. VUG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No new signals fired.
VUG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and VUG both carry a full feed there.
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
VUGVUG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VUGVUG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
VUGVUG on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
VUGVUG on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | LLY | VUG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VUG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VUG | 43 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VUG | Value 25 vs 30 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 9.1% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VUG | Risk Resilience 45 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LLY and VUG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VUG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1VUG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VUG +15
- 43 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- VUG +12
- 45 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VUG +4
- 56 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- LLY +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when VUG 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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VUG 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 +0.44%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.38%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to VUG's edge.
- 2LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3VUG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split| Metric | LLY | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 84% | — |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | — |
| Return on equity | 92.6% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | LLY | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40 | 47.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 13.7% |
Risk
VUG is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.35 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.58 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -16.7% |
| Current drawdown | -9.7% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 17.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LLY or VUG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VUG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 58 against LLY's 43. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 VUG the better buy right now?
VUG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VUG over LLY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VUG leads Momentum by 36 points; VUG leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; VUG leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or VUG?
Analyst price targets imply +14.2% upside for LLY and not covered for VUG. 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 VUG?
VUG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VUG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 VUG?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 VUG?
VUG on the Momentum factor, by 36 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 VUG?
VUG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VUG on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 VUG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VUG's lead over LLY getting stronger or weaker?
VUG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when VUG moved ahead of LLY.
What would change the LLY vs VUG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LLY closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to VUG's edge; LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; VUG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 VUG?
LLY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. VUG: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 VUG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LLY and VUG 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.