LLY vs XLV Stock Comparison
Eli Lilly and Company vs State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLV leads
XLV leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLV, its lead is widening, 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 XLV over LLY, 62 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. XLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while LLY holds the stronger quality profile. XLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 19 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.
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 65XLV +42
- Value30%25 vs 50XLV +25
- Risk Resilience15%45 vs 61XLV +16
- Quality30%76 vs 71LLY +5
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLV. XLV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; 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.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No new signals fired.
XLV's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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
XLV (State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
LLY (Eli Lilly and Company): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 38.3% against 18.9%.
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
XLVXLV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLVXLV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
XLVXLV on the Momentum factor, by 42 points.
Lower downside
XLVXLV on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 | +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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLV | 43 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLV | Value 25 vs 50 |
| Technicals | XLV | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs 5.4%; vs 200-day 9.1% vs 10% |
| Risk Resilience | XLV | Risk Resilience 45 vs 61 |
| 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 rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLV +19
- 43 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- XLV +18
- 45 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- XLV +9
- 56 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- XLV +6
- 55 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 10 when XLV 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
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.93%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
XLV 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 +0.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.79%, AIQ +1 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 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge.
- 2LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| 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
XLV has the stronger structure| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40 | 55.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 28.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | 5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | 10% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 18.9% |
Risk
XLV is the more resilient| Metric | LLY | XLV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.35 | 1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.58 | 2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -23.3% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.7% | -2.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -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, XLV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against LLY's 43. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 XLV the better buy right now?
XLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLV over LLY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLV leads Momentum by 42 points; XLV leads Value by 25 points; XLV leads Risk Resilience by 16 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 +14.2% 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 25 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?
XLV on the Momentum factor, by 42 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 XLV?
XLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLV on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 XLV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLV's lead over LLY getting stronger or weaker?
XLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 19 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-10, when XLV moved ahead of LLY.
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: LLY closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLV's edge; LLY's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; XLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 XLV?
LLY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLV: 3 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 XLV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LLY and XLV 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.