LLY vs XLV Stock Comparison
LLY currently leads XLV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 60. The clearest difference is momentum, while XLV has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between LLY and XLV?
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 State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
LLY leads
LLY leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support LLY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eli Lilly and Company
State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LLY over XLV, 62 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. LLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while XLV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LLY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. LLY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eli Lilly and Company and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 XLV 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 82LLY +13
- Risk Resilience50 vs 62XLV +12
- Quality76 vs 70LLY +6
- Value26 vs 31XLV +5
1 of 4 evidence groups favor LLY. LLY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; XLV keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LLY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LLY and XLV 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.
XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLVXLV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
LLYLLY on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
XLVXLV on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 | XLV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.5% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +42.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 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 | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLV | Value 26 vs 31 |
| Technicals | LLY | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs 5%; vs 200-day 18.7% vs 13.9% |
| Risk Resilience | XLV | Risk Resilience 50 vs 62 |
| 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 XLV 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LLY +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- LLY +2
- 61 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- LLY +3
- 63 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- XLV +10
- 51 vs 61
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when LLY moved ahead of XLV.
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.
LLY and XLV carry the same 8 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -0.49%, 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.
- 1XLV closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge.
- 2XLV's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility 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
Split| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.9% | — |
| Gross margin | 84% | — |
| Operating margin | 43.9% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 92.6% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | — |
Performance
LLY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10% | 6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.7% | 5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.4% | 12.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.2% | 20.9% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 16.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 56.7% | 26.3% |
Technicals
LLY has the stronger structure| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.4 | 72.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 16 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.7% | 13.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.4% | 18.4% |
Risk
XLV is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | 1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.62 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 16.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LLY or XLV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LLY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against XLV's 60. The edge comes from momentum and quality. XLV is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 XLV the better buy right now?
LLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LLY over XLV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LLY leads Momentum by 13 points; XLV leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; LLY leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LLY or XLV?
Analyst price targets imply +4.5% upside for LLY and not covered for XLV. 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 XLV?
XLV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLV 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 XLV?
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 XLV?
LLY on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 XLV?
XLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLV on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. 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 XLV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is LLY's lead over XLV getting stronger or weaker?
LLY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when LLY moved ahead of XLV.
What would change the LLY vs XLV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLV closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to LLY's edge; XLV's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility 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 XLV?
LLY: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. XLV: 6 bullish / 2 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 XLV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.