For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Eli Lilly and Company (LLY) — 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 -1 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 86 · Value -72 · Sentiment 4 (timing only, not weighted)
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.
Eli Lilly and Company
LLY NYSEEli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets prescription medicines. Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, the company focuses on therapies addressing diabetes, oncology, immunology, neuroscience, and cardiometabolic conditions. Its portfolio includes medicines for chronic metabolic diseases, cancer treatments aimed at specific tumor types, and immunology drugs targeting inflammatory and autoimmune disorders. Eli Lilly and Company serves healthcare systems, hospitals, and pharmacies worldwide, with a strong presence in major markets such as the United States, Europe, China, and Japan. The company operates across the full pharmaceutical value chain, from research and clinical development to large-scale manufacturing and global distribution. Through its focus on innovative, science-driven therapies for complex diseases, Eli Lilly and Company plays a significant role in the healthcare sector, supporting physicians and patients with branded medicines that are integrated into standard treatment protocols across multiple therapeutic areas.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 22.95
Total Equity: N/A
Shares: 899,300,000
Total Debt: $42.50B
Cash: $7.27B
EBITDA: $45.03B
Total Debt: $42.50B
Cash: $7.27B
Revenue: $65.18B
Revenue: $65.18B
Revenue: $65.18B
Total Equity: N/A
Tax Rate: 19.8%
Equity: N/A
Total Debt: $42.50B
Cash: $7.27B
Current Liabilities: $35.23B
Long-Term Debt: $40.87B
Total Debt: $42.50B
Total Equity: N/A
Shares: 899,300,000
Shares: 899,300,000
CapEx: $0.00
Shares: 899,300,000
Stock Price: $1,210
Net Income: $20.64B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:36am (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $28.3B | $28.5B | $34.1B | $45.0B | $65.2B |
| Cost of Revenue | $7.3B | $6.6B | $7.1B | $8.4B | $11.1B |
| Gross Profit | $21.0B | $21.9B | $27.0B | $36.6B | $54.1B |
| Operating Expenses | $13.5B | $13.6B | $7.4B | $8.6B | $11.1B |
| Operating Income | $7.5B | $8.3B | $19.6B | $28.0B | $43.0B |
| Net Income | $5.6B | $6.2B | $5.2B | $10.6B | $20.6B |
| EBITDA | $9.1B | $9.8B | $21.2B | $29.8B | $45.0B |
| EPS | $6.15 | $6.93 | $5.82 | $11.76 | $23.00 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $6.12 | $6.90 | $5.80 | $11.71 | $22.95 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:11am (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $3.8B | $2.1B | $2.8B | $3.3B | $7.3B |
| Total Current Assets | $18.5B | $18.0B | $25.7B | $32.7B | $55.6B |
| Total Assets | $48.8B | $49.5B | $64.0B | $78.7B | $112.5B |
| Current Liabilities | $15.1B | $17.1B | $27.3B | $28.4B | $35.2B |
| Long-Term Debt | $15.3B | $14.7B | $18.3B | $28.5B | $40.9B |
| Total Liabilities | $39.7B | $38.7B | $53.1B | $64.4B | — |
| Total Equity | $9.2B | $10.8B | $10.9B | $14.3B | — |
| Retained Earnings | $9.0B | $10.0B | $10.3B | $13.5B | $24.5B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:36am (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $7.3B | $7.1B | $4.2B | $8.8B | $16.8B |
| Capital Expenditure | — | — | — | — | — |
| Free Cash Flow | — | — | — | — | — |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$747.4M | -$327.2M | — | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $501.4M | -$62.0M | $8.6B | $8.9B | $8.1B |
| Dividends Paid | -$3.1B | -$3.5B | -$4.1B | -$4.7B | -$5.4B |
| Stock Buybacks | -$1.3B | -$1.5B | -$750.0M | -$2.5B | -$4.1B |
| Net Change in Cash | $161.4M | -$1.8B | $751.6M | $449.8M | $4.0B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 12:36am (24d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +0.8% | +19.6% | +32.0% | +44.7% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +4.3% | +23.4% | +35.4% | +47.8% |
| Operating Income Growth | +9.7% | +137.2% | +42.7% | +53.5% |
| Net Income Growth | +11.9% | -16.1% | +102.1% | +94.9% |
| EBITDA Growth | +7.8% | +115.9% | +40.8% | +51.1% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Jul 23, 2026 7:11pm (31d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-15 | $1.73 | — | — | — |
| 2026-02-13 | $1.73 | — | — | — |
| 2025-11-14 | $1.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-15 | $1.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-16 | $1.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-14 | $1.50 | — | — | — |
| 2024-11-15 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-15 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2024-05-15 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2024-02-14 | $1.30 | — | — | — |
| 2023-11-14 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2023-08-14 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2023-05-12 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2023-02-14 | $1.13 | — | — | — |
| 2022-11-14 | $0.98 | — | — | — |
| 2022-08-12 | $0.98 | — | — | — |
| 2022-05-13 | $0.98 | — | — | — |
| 2022-02-14 | $0.98 | — | — | — |
| 2021-11-12 | $0.85 | — | — | — |
| 2021-08-12 | $0.85 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 09:03| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($1,210.02) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +62% | 35.0% | $2,171.01 | +79% |
| Base — stabilizes | +41% | 33.5% | $1,233.90 | +2% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +21% | 28.5% | $592.90 | -51% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +43% | 33.5% | $1,271.83 | +5% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
The raw trajectory is genuinely extraordinary and worth restating in one line because it drives everything else: quarterly revenue went from $11.3B in Q2'24 to $19.8B in Q1'26 — a 75% increase in seven quarters — while net margin walked from 8.5% (Q3'24, likely one-time charges) to a clean 37.4% in the most recent quarter. Annual revenue nearly doubled from $34.1B (2023) to $65.2B (2025), and net income quadrupled ($5.2B → $20.6B). That's not pharma growth; that's Nvidia-adjacent operating leverage on a scaled asset base. Op margin of 66% and gross margin of 83% on a $65B revenue base is a genuine anomaly in drug manufacturing — Novo runs ~45% op margin, Merck ~30%. So the "platform-inflection" framing from pre-flight is directionally right, not marketing.
That said, the synthesis and narrative models are doing something I want to push back on: they're treating "High Conviction Required" as a verdict when it's really a shrug. At $1,210 and $1.08T market cap, LLY trades at 52.7x earnings, 16.7x sales, 24.8x EV/EBITDA, and roughly 65x trailing FCF (OCF $16.8B with capex undisclosed but almost certainly $7–9B given the GLP-1 capacity build-out — so FCF closer to $8–10B). On 2025 net income of $20.6B, you're paying ~52x for a business where the sequential quarterly revenue growth has already decelerated: Q3'25 → Q4'25 was +9.6%, Q4'25 → Q1'26 was +2.6%. That's the "decelerating" flag in revenue confidence, and it matters. If the reverse-DCF requires ~20% revenue CAGR for a decade plus terminal margins holding at 35%+, then any of (a) CMS negotiation on Zepbound/Mounjaro post-2027, (b) oral GLP-1 entrants (Pfizer's danuglipron failed but Roche/AstraZeneca are advancing), or (c) compounding pharmacy erosion legally resolved against Lilly compresses the multiple meaningfully.
The contrarian argument the models underweight: GLP-1s are not software. Gross margin of 83% is real today, but tirzepatide loses US composition-of-matter protection around 2036-2037, and biosimilar/generic peptide competition in ex-US markets arrives sooner. More immediately, Medicare Part D negotiation eligibility for Mounjaro likely hits by 2027-2028. The comparison to insulin is unintentionally damning — insulin went from miracle molecule to commodity with pricing scandals. The "platform-monopoly" archetype in the narrative layer is doing heavy lifting; this is a two-drug concentration risk (tirzepatide franchise is >40% of revenue) dressed up as a platform. Also worth noting: insider activity shows only tiny award grants (4-14 shares), no open-market buying, which for a stock the models are calling a generational inflection is telling — insiders aren't backing up the truck at $1,210 either. Debt sits at $42.5B against $7.3B cash, so net debt $35B is manageable against $16.8B OCF but not trivial if capex stays elevated.
Where I land: the models are right that this is a great business at an inflection, and they're right to refuse a simple over/undervalued call, but "High Conviction Required" understates how much of the current price is narrative premium versus cash flows. Fair value on 2026E earnings of ~$32–35B (assuming margin holds and ~25% growth) at a defensible 30-35x — appropriate for a decelerating hyper-grower with patent cliffs visible on the horizon — gets you to $950–1,100/share. The current $1,210 embeds continued margin expansion and no meaningful GLP-1 competition through 2030, both of which are contestable. I dissent mildly from the synthesis: this isn't "high conviction required," it's "modestly overvalued with binary catalysts." The 37.4% Q1'26 margin is the tell — that's likely a peak-margin quarter as capacity comes online and mix normalizes. I'd want to see the Q2'26 print (specifically whether sequential revenue growth reaccelerates above 5% and whether margin holds >35%) before adding. Existing holders should hold; new money should wait for either a 15% pullback to ~$1,030 or ev
GPT Reading
What jumps out to me is not just that Eli Lilly is growing fast, but that the earnings model has become brutally more efficient in a very short period. Revenue went from $45.0B in 2024 to $65.2B in 2025, up 44.7%, but net income went from $10.6B to $20.6B, up almost 95%, which means this is not merely a volume story; it is a mix, pricing, and scale story. The quarterly path reinforces that: Q1’25 was $12.7B of revenue at a 21.7% net margin, and by Q1’26 Lilly was at $19.8B and 37.4%. That is a 55% revenue increase with net income nearly tripling from $2.76B to $7.40B. Annual operating income of $43.0B on $65.2B of sales implies a 66.0% operating margin, which is so far above large-cap pharma norms that the stock cannot be analyzed on legacy pharma heuristics alone. The market is clearly paying for a company that has escaped the sector’s usual maturity profile.
But price still matters, and at $1.08T market cap the stock is being valued less like a great drug company and more like a dominant compounding engine with very long duration. A 52.7x P/E and 16.7x sales multiple on a company that already does $65B of revenue is an extreme setup. Even if 2026 net income reaches something like $25-30B, the stock is still around 36-43x current-year earnings for a business whose quarterly sequential growth has slowed from 14.3% in Q2’25 to 13.1% in Q3’25 to 9.6% in Q4’25 to 2.6% in Q1’26. That deceleration may partly reflect supply timing rather than demand, but investors are paying a multiple that assumes the distinction won’t matter. The balance sheet is fine, not pristine: $42.5B debt against $7.3B cash is manageable because earnings are exploding, yet it does remove some margin for error if manufacturing investment and launch spending remain high.
On Opus’s narrative, I agree with the core claim that this is “not pharma growth” and that the platform-inflection framing is directionally correct. The income statement is too powerful to dismiss; few companies nearly double revenue in two years while taking net margin above 30%. I also agree with Opus that “High Conviction Required” is not a verdict. Investors need an actual price judgment here, not an admiration of the business. And I agree that the recent quarterly cadence matters: when a stock trades at 24.8x EV/EBITDA and over 50x earnings, a move from double-digit sequential growth to 2.6% is absolutely material.
Where I disagree with Opus is on how aggressively to penalize the current multiple for near- and medium-term risk. Opus argues that fair value is roughly $950-1,100 and that the current price “embeds continued margin expansion and no meaningful GLP-1 competition through 2030.” I think that is too bearish on the franchise durability and too anchored to a conventional de-rating framework. Lilly does not need “no meaningful competition” to justify more than 35x earnings; it needs to remain the economic leader in a category that is still underpenetrated globally. The 2025 base is already $65.2B of revenue, and the last four reported quarters sum to about $65.0B as well, so even on a run-rate basis the company is not obviously overearning from a one-off spike. If 2026 revenue lands around $72-78B and net income reaches $26-29B, then a 40-45x multiple is expensive but not absurd for a business still growing revenue 15-20% with 30%+ net margins. I also think Opus overstates the insider signal; tiny award grants and no open-market buying at a mega-cap pharma company tell me almost nothing.
I do agree with Opus that the “platform-monopoly” language is too flattering and that concentration risk is real. The Delvantic AI Findings is right to be skeptical of treating GLP-1s like software. This is still a patent-protected therapeutics franchise with reimbursement and political risk, not a zero-marginal-cost ecosystem. A serious skeptic of both my view and Opus’s would go further: they would say both of us are still underwriting today’s margins too generously, that 66% operating margin and 37% quarterly net margin are closer to peak economics than steady state, and that a $1T+ pharma company with net debt of roughly $35B should not get the benefit of heroic terminal assumptions. That skeptic could be right if 2026 reveals that revenue growth settles into the low teens while pricing pressure starts earlier than bulls expect.
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
Revenue more than doubled from 28.3B in 2021 to 65.2B in 2025, a roughly 23% CAGR, while gross margin expanded from 74.2% to 83.0% and operating margin from 26.7% to 66.0%. Net income went from 5.58B to 20.64B and FCF from 7.26B to 16.81B over the same window - this is genuine operating leverage on the GLP-1 franchise (Mounjaro/Zepbound), not accounting flattery. OCF/NI at 0.98x and accruals at 0.4% of assets confirm the earnings are cash-backed and clean.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Revenue concentration in tirzepatide (Mounjaro + Zepbound) as % of total and growth trajectory of non-GLP-1 franchises
- Capex intensity and manufacturing capacity commitments - how much of the debt build funds tirzepatide supply
- Patent expiry timeline for tirzepatide and pipeline depth in oral GLP-1, obesity, and Alzheimer's (donanemab)
- Competitive dynamics vs Novo Nordisk and emerging oral/small-molecule entrants
- Debt maturity schedule and interest coverage given the -35B net debt position
- Pricing/reimbursement risk in obesity indication as payors scrutinize costs
The e2e synthesis flags 'High Conviction Required' - shorthand for a stock where the deserved-value math only works if you underwrite an aggressive forward path. On $65B revenue growing ~23% and 66% operating margins, LLY earns roughly $20-25B of underlying operating profit; the $1.08T cap implies something like 45-55x that, or ~30x forward earnings if you extrapolate GLP-1 momentum. That is a full pharma-growth multiple already, not a value entry point. The Fortress quality grade absolutely raises the deserved multiple - elite margins, no dilution, real pricing power - but even a generous 25-28x on quality-adjusted forward earnings lands you below, not above, the current tape. What is priced in: tirzepatide and orforglipron sustaining GLP-1 share against Novo and next-gen entrants, obesity TAM expanding into reimbursed chronic-care use, and the neuroscience/oncology pipeline delivering at least one more blockbuster. That is a plausible bull case, not a conservative one. The margin of safety is thin to negative: you are paying today for outcomes that still need to be earned, with real competitive and reimbursement risk on the single franchise doing most of the heavy lifting. Verdict: not egregious, but not cheap. A great business the market already understands and rewards. I would want a meaningful pullback before the risk/reward tilts.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Mounjaro/Zepbound volume and net pricing trajectory in next 2-3 quarters vs Novo's Wegovy
- orforglipron Phase 3 efficacy and tolerability read
- donanemab uptake, safety signals, and payer coverage decisions
- capex and manufacturing capacity guidance - key to sustaining GLP-1 supply-led growth
- any change in operating margin guidance as pricing pressure and manufacturing ramp collide
The macro tape is stressed (VIX in the 97th percentile, S&P off its highs, 10y at 4.61%), but LLY's 0.51 beta and healthcare-defensive character mean the risk-off pressure lands with roughly half the force it would on a high-beta story stock. This is not a name that gets mauled in a stress regime. The bigger sentiment issue is narrative-specific: the news flow this week is dominated by GLP-1 competition (Amgen's monthly injectable in six Phase 3 trials, Novo's Ozempic/Wegovy Q2 setup, Roche in the wings). The 'platform-monopoly' framing that justified the trillion-dollar cap is being actively chipped at in the tape. Momentum is still strong (38% CAGR, recent 44.7% acceleration), so the cult coefficient and visionary-founder archetype are intact for now, but durability is only moderate and the story is maturing. Analyst/news tone is mixed-to-cautious: a Zacks piece flags LLY doesn't have the ingredients for an earnings beat into the print, and multiple articles frame LLY as the incumbent being hunted rather than the disruptor. Net: the defensive beta cancels much of the macro headwind, and the narrative is tilting from tailwind to neutral as the competitive drumbeat grows louder. Balanced, with a slight negative drift into the print.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- The upcoming LLY earnings print - a miss or soft guide would validate the cautious pre-print tone and crack the momentum
- Amgen's Phase 3 GLP-1 readouts - any efficacy signal near tirzepatide would meaningfully shift the narrative
- Novo Nordisk Q2 print and commentary on pricing/reimbursement pressure across the GLP-1 category
- Whether sector rotation into defensives on the stress tape starts pulling LLY higher relative to the tape
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Jul 30, 2026, LLY was $1,210.02. We expect it to be $1,145.00 by Jan 2027, and we consider it great value under $950.00. 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.