For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score +2 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 100 · Value -79 · Sentiment 6 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $171.51 vs $265.53 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Johnson & Johnson
JNJ NYSEJohnson & Johnson is a holding company engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and sale of healthcare products worldwide. It operates through two primary segments: Innovative Medicine, which focuses on pharmaceuticals including treatments for immunology, oncology, infectious diseases, neuroscience, cardiovascular and metabolic disorders, and pulmonary hypertension; and MedTech, which provides advanced surgical equipment, devices for orthopaedics, vision care, and solutions for robotics, navigation, and digital technologies. The company delivers innovative medicines and medical technologies that address unmet patient needs across diverse therapeutic areas, supporting healthcare professionals and consumers globally. Johnson & Johnson plays a pivotal role in the healthcare sector by advancing medical innovation and improving health outcomes through its broad portfolio of branded products and services. Founded in 1887 and headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, it remains a cornerstone of the global health technology and pharmaceuticals industry.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 11.03
Total Equity: $81.54B
Shares: 2,429,400,000
Total Debt: $47.94B
Cash: $19.71B
EBITDA: $47.66B
Total Debt: $47.94B
Cash: $19.71B
Revenue: $94.19B
Revenue: $94.19B
Revenue: $94.19B
Total Equity: $81.54B
Tax Rate: 17.7%
Equity: $81.54B
Total Debt: $47.94B
Cash: $19.71B
Current Liabilities: $54.13B
Long-Term Debt: $39.44B
Total Debt: $47.94B
Total Equity: $81.54B
Shares: 2,429,400,000
Shares: 2,429,400,000
CapEx: -$4.83B
Shares: 2,429,400,000
Stock Price: $265.53
Net Income: $26.80B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:41am (24d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $93.8B | $80.0B | $85.2B | $88.8B | $94.2B |
| Cost of Revenue | $29.9B | $24.6B | $26.6B | $27.5B | $30.3B |
| Gross Profit | $63.9B | $55.4B | $58.6B | $61.4B | $63.9B |
| Operating Expenses | $24.7B | $20.2B | $22.0B | $24.7B | $23.8B |
| Operating Income | $39.3B | $35.1B | $36.6B | $36.6B | $40.2B |
| Net Income | $20.9B | $17.9B | $35.2B | $14.1B | $26.8B |
| EBITDA | $46.7B | $42.1B | $44.1B | $44.0B | $47.7B |
| EPS | $7.93 | $6.83 | $13.88 | $5.84 | $11.13 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $7.81 | $6.73 | $13.72 | $5.79 | $11.03 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:11am (24d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $14.5B | $12.9B | $21.9B | $24.1B | $19.7B |
| Total Current Assets | $61.0B | $55.3B | $53.5B | $55.9B | $55.6B |
| Total Assets | $182.0B | $187.4B | $167.6B | $180.1B | $199.2B |
| Current Liabilities | $45.2B | $55.8B | $46.3B | $50.3B | $54.1B |
| Long-Term Debt | $30.0B | $26.9B | $25.9B | $30.7B | $39.4B |
| Total Liabilities | $108.0B | $110.6B | $98.8B | $108.6B | $117.7B |
| Total Equity | $74.0B | $76.8B | $68.8B | $71.5B | $81.5B |
| Retained Earnings | $123.1B | $128.3B | $153.8B | $155.8B | $169.0B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:41am (24d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $23.4B | $21.2B | $22.8B | $24.3B | $24.5B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$3.7B | -$4.0B | -$4.5B | -$4.4B | -$4.8B |
| Free Cash Flow | $19.8B | $17.2B | $18.2B | $19.8B | $19.7B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$60.0M | -$17.7B | $0 | -$15.1B | -$17.5B |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $200.0M | $14.0B | $12.2B | $20.5B | $22.0B |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$3.5B | -$6.0B | -$5.1B | -$2.4B | -$6.0B |
| Net Change in Cash | $502.0M | -$360.0M | $7.7B | $2.2B | -$4.4B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:41am (24d ago)| Metric | 2023 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | -14.7% | +6.5% | +4.3% | +6.0% |
| Gross Profit Growth | -13.3% | +5.8% | +4.7% | +4.2% |
| Operating Income Growth | -10.5% | +4.2% | +0.1% | +9.6% |
| Net Income Growth | -14.1% | +95.9% | -60.0% | +90.6% |
| EBITDA Growth | -9.7% | +4.7% | -0.3% | +8.4% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Jul 23, 2026 6:58pm (31d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-26 | $1.34 | — | — | — |
| 2026-02-24 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2025-11-25 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-26 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-27 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-18 | $1.24 | — | — | — |
| 2024-11-26 | $1.24 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-27 | $1.24 | — | — | — |
| 2024-05-20 | $1.24 | — | — | — |
| 2024-02-16 | $1.19 | — | — | — |
| 2023-11-20 | $1.19 | — | — | — |
| 2023-08-25 | $1.19 | — | — | — |
| 2023-05-22 | $1.19 | — | — | — |
| 2023-02-17 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2022-11-21 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2022-08-22 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2022-05-23 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2022-02-18 | $1.06 | — | — | — |
| 2021-11-22 | $1.06 | — | — | — |
| 2021-08-23 | $1.06 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 09:01Even the bull case prices 35% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 51%.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($265.53) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +12% | 24.7% | $173.54 | -35% |
| Base — stabilizes | +8% | 21.5% | $135.03 | -49% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +4% | 18.3% | $102.98 | -61% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +7% | 21.5% | $130.40 | -51% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
Looking at the raw numbers first: JNJ is running at roughly $97-98B annualized revenue (Q2 2026 at $25.31B, up 6.6% YoY from $23.74B), with net margins re-stabilizing in the 21-22% band after the 2025 Kenvue-related distortions (that Q1 2025 50.2% margin and the $11B NI print is the spinoff gain, not operating reality). Underlying earnings power looks like ~$21-22B annualized on current quarterly cadence, which puts trailing P/E closer to 29-30x on clean numbers rather than the 24x headline. Gross margin at 68%, operating margin 42%, ROIC 30%, FCF $19.7B — this is genuinely elite capital productivity. Debt/equity 0.59 with $19.7B cash against $47.9B debt is not remotely stretched for a company generating ~$20B in FCF. The 1.97% dividend yield on a $640B market cap implies ~$12.6B in dividends, roughly 64% of FCF — sustainable but not expandable without pipeline delivery.
The synthesis model's $179 fair value strikes me as too punitive. A DCF that spits out a 32% discount to market on a company compounding revenue at 5-6%, generating 30% ROIC, with a durable franchise and AAA-tier balance sheet is likely using either an aggressive discount rate or terminal growth assumption inconsistent with healthcare demographics. That said, the market-forces "neutral" read and the narrative layer's observation that the premium is "entirely narrative" both point at the right tension: JNJ is priced at ~30x clean earnings against 5% top-line growth and negative 12.7% earnings CAGR (admittedly distorted by talc/spin comparisons). The pre-flight note about Stelara biosimilar erosion is the real issue — Stelara was ~$10B in peak revenue and is actively being eroded in 2024-2026, which is exactly why revenue growth is only 5-6% despite oncology (Darzalex, Carvykti) and pipeline strength. The Q2 2026 acceleration to $25.3B suggests the Stelara cliff is being absorbed better than feared.
The contrarian case against the synthesis "overvalued" verdict: JNJ post-Kenvue is a higher-quality business than the historical composite suggests. Operating margins expanded from ~40% pre-spin to 43% post, and the pharma mix means terminal growth should plausibly be 3-4%, not the 2% GDP-anchor most DCFs use. Rerate 3% terminal at a 7.5% WACC on $20B FCF and you get closer to $440B-$500B — still below the $640B market cap, but the gap is 25-35%, not 48%. The contrarian case FOR the synthesis verdict: insider activity shows sales dominating exercises (net negative), the pipeline replacement math for Stelara requires Tremfya, Rybrevant, and Carvykti to all hit consensus, and litigation reserves (talc especially) remain a live tail risk with settlement figures that have crept from $8.9B to reportedly $10B+. At 30x clean earnings you're paying a growth-stock multiple for a company whose earnings CAGR is negative on a 3-yr look-back.
Where the data is thin: the 2026 quarter dates suggest this file uses fiscal-year-forward stamping — I'm treating June 2026 as a recent print, but if this is actually projected/pre-announced data the entire recent-trajectory read weakens. The insider transactions are unattributed ("?") which makes it impossible to distinguish CEO/CFO signaling from routine option exercises by mid-level officers. No segment breakout means I can't verify the pre-flight's central claim that MedTech and Pharma have divergent trajectories — critical for a sum-of-parts case. Macro headwinds flagged without specifics; healthcare is typically defensive against most macro regimes so this feels like a stale tag. I largely agree with the synthesis direction (overvalued) but dissent on magnitude — $179 is too low; fair value is closer to $215-230, meaning ~15-20% overvalued rather than 32%. That's not a short, it's a "don't chase" — and the narrative layer's "institutional inertia" observation explains exactly why the premium persists and why it could compress slowly rather than collapse.
GPT Reading
What jumps out to me is not “elite compounding” so much as a very high-quality but plainly mature franchise being capitalized as if its post-spin economics are cleaner and faster than the actual cash record shows. Revenue has improved from $88.8B in 2024 to $94.2B in 2025, and the last four quarters sum to about $96.9B, so the top line is indeed growing in the mid-single digits. But cash generation is less flattering than the income statement: 2025 free cash flow was $19.7B against $26.8B of net income, and operating cash flow was only $24.5B. On a $639.9B market cap, that is roughly a 3.1% FCF yield. For a company with 5-6% revenue growth, recent normalized net margins around 21-22%, and real patent/litigation uncertainty, that is expensive. The balance sheet is solid rather than magical: $47.9B of debt offset by $19.7B cash leaves about $28B net debt, perfectly manageable, but hardly a reason to suspend valuation discipline. I see a business with unusually strong gross and operating margins for a megacap healthcare company, but also one whose market value is asking investors to pay nearly 24x reported earnings, almost 8x book, and nearly 7x sales for stability more than acceleration.
The quarterly pattern also matters. Excluding the obvious one-off $11.0B net income quarter in March 2025, earnings have settled into a narrow $5.1B-$5.5B range while revenue has climbed from $22.5B in late 2024 to $25.3B in June 2026. That is healthy, but it is not the shape of a business with major operating leverage still ahead; it looks closer to a mature earnings plateau with incremental top-line gains. Annual operating income rose from $36.6B in 2024 to $40.2B in 2025, which is good, but 2022 revenue was still higher at $93.8B than 2025’s $94.2B is by only a whisker. So the deeper story I see is that JNJ has become a cleaner, more focused asset post-Kenvue, yet the multi-year economic trajectory remains far more “steady incumbent” than “re-rated growth compounder.” At $265.53, the stock is being valued for resilience, not for what the last several years of revenue, FCF, and normalized earnings actually prove.
Opus argues the synthesis model’s roughly $179 fair value is “too punitive,” and on that narrow point I agree. A company with 67.9% gross margin, 42.6% operating margin, 30% ROIC, and a sub-0.6 debt/equity ratio should not trade as if it were some no-mo industrial. But I disagree with Opus’s softer framing that fair value is $215-230 because the gap between quality and price is still larger than they suggest. Their core move is to reframe reported P/E to a “clean” 29-30x earnings, and that is directionally right; where I part ways is that once you admit clean earnings power is only around $21-22B, the current valuation becomes harder, not easier, to defend. A $640B equity value on $21-22B of normalized earnings and $19.7B of FCF is still rich even for a premier healthcare name. Opus also says the Q2 2026 revenue of $25.3B suggests the Stelara cliff is being absorbed better than feared. Maybe, but the evidence provided only shows consolidated growth, not replacement quality. Without segment or product-level disclosure here, I would not infer successful absorption simply from 6-7% revenue growth and flat-ish quarterly earnings.
I agree with Opus that the March 2025 quarter is non-economic noise and should be stripped out, and I agree that the balance sheet is comfortably financeable. I also agree with their dismissal of insider data as weak evidence; the transactions shown are mostly option exercises and related sales, not a persuasive signal. Where I disagree more sharply is with Opus’s suggestion that post-Kenvue JNJ deserves a structurally higher terminal-growth framework because it is a “higher-quality business than the historical composite suggests.” The quality may be higher, but quality alone does not justify paying 14x EV/EBITDA and over 7x EV/revenue for a company whose annual revenue CAGR is only 5.2%, whose FCF CAGR is 3.9%, and whose earnings history is heavily distorted by non-operating items. The Delvantic AI Findings says the premium is “entirely narrative”; that overstates it, but the broad point is correct. The market is paying a scarcity premium for safety, brand, and institutional ownership. That premium is real, but at this price it is too large.
A careful skeptic of both my view and Opus’s would say we may both be underestimating the value of durability in an era where investors will pay up for non-cyclical cash flows, especially with a 1.97% dividend, strong returns on capital, and low probability of balance-sheet stress. They would also note that if revenue annualizes near $100B and net income holds around $22B while litigation fades, today’s multiple could compress naturally into something acceptable without a price drop. That is fair. But based on the numbers here, the burden of proof is on the bull case: JNJ looks like a premium business, not a premium growth business, and those are not worth the same multiple.
Grok Reading
grok-critique step) alongside the other Big-3 seats, when a
report is run on this ticker.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
JNJ prints roughly $19-20B of free cash flow every year like clockwork (19.76, 17.19, 18.25, 19.84, 19.70 across the 2022-2025 span), on revenue that has re-accelerated from 79.99B in 2023 (post-Kenvue separation) to 94.19B in 2025. Gross margins sit at a stable 68-69% and operating margins in a tight 41-44% band - this is the profile of a durable, high-moat drug/medtech franchise with pricing power. Earnings quality is clean: OCF/NI of 1.12x, accruals at -0.1% of assets, Beneish M of -2.24, and Altman Z of 5.6 all indicate reported profits are backed by cash, not accruals.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Talc and opioid litigation reserves and remaining exposure in the 10-K contingencies footnote
- Stelara biosimilar erosion pace and pipeline coverage (Darzalex, Tremfya, Carvykti trajectories)
- Pharma vs MedTech segment growth mix and any customer/product concentration
- Gross debt maturity schedule and interest coverage detail behind the -$27.84B net cash figure
- Working capital and inventory trends to confirm the clean accruals reading is not masking channel stuffing
The e2e composite fair value is $171.51 with a signal-adjusted mark of $179.40, implying roughly -32% downside from the $265.53 price. The EPV floor of $171.51 corroborates the ballpark, so this is not a runaway single-method artifact — the deserved-value cluster sits in the high $170s to maybe low $200s once you credit the Fortress quality grade and elite FCF. Even generously adding a premium for durability and dividend consistency, getting from ~$180 to $265 requires the market to underwrite continued pipeline offsets to the Stelara cliff, MedTech reacceleration, and a benign resolution of talc/opioid tails — much of which is a 'show me' bet, not a discount.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Stelara biosimilar erosion trajectory in next 2-4 quarters vs guidance
- MedTech organic growth reacceleration and margin trend
- Talc trust funding status and any incremental opioid liability true-ups
- Pipeline contribution (Tremfya, Rybrevant, Carvykti) offset math vs LOEs
- Buyback pace vs dilution and net debt trajectory
The macro tape is stressed (VIX 20.7, S&P off 3.9%, 10y at 4.61%), but JNJ's 0.24 beta and defensive-pharma classification mean the risk-off pressure that is crushing high-beta story stocks lands here as a mild tailwind - money looking to hide rotates toward exactly this profile. That defensive bid is the single most important sentiment force on the name right now. Offsetting it, the active narrative is 'steady compounder' with moderate intensity and low cult - durable but boring, which means no momentum crowd and no re-rating impulse; the tape can lift it, but the story cannot. News flow is mixed-to-slightly-negative: the $5.5B talc settlement headline reopens a litigation overhang investors thought was fading, and a competing-pharma headline ('Meet the Stock That's Obliterating Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson, and AbbVie') reinforces that JNJ is being framed as the laggard in its cohort. The Firefly Bio close and Sail Biomedicines CAR-T collaboration are modest narrative positives (pipeline / innovation optics) but too small to shift tone. Net: defensive rotation tailwind roughly offsets talc-headline and laggard-framing headwinds - balanced, with a slight lean to the positive side in a stress tape.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether the $5.5B talc offer is accepted or triggers a fresh wave of plaintiff pushback in the next 2-4 weeks
- Sector rotation flows: is defensive pharma actually catching bids as VIX stays above 20, or is money going to staples/utilities instead
- Analyst target revisions post-talc headline - any downgrades would break the balanced read
- Whether the AbbVie 'cheap pharma' narrative pulls capital away from JNJ specifically
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Jul 30, 2026, JNJ was $265.53. We expect it to be $254.00 by Jan 2027, and we consider it great value under $210.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Jul 30, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.