Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 13, 2026
10 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 13, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 20, 2026 · 7 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Zoetis Inc. (ZTS) — 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 +33 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 69 · Value 4 · Sentiment -53 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $84.55 vs $73.54 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 cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-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.

Zoetis Inc.

ZTS NYSE
Healthcare · Drug Manufacturers - Specialty & Generic
Parsippany, NJ 07054, United States zoetis.com Updated Aug 12, 10:57am
Price
$72.51
Market Cap
$31.1B
Employees
14,500
Beta
0.73
Avg Volume
6,261,008
Last Dividend
$2.09
CEO
Ms. Kristin C. Peck

Zoetis Inc. is a global animal health company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and commercializes medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, biodevices, genetic tests, and precision animal health solutions. Its products serve both companion animals, such as dogs, cats, and horses, and livestock, including cattle, swine, poultry, fish, and sheep. Zoetis offers a broad portfolio spanning parasiticides, vaccines, dermatology treatments, anti-infectives, pain and sedation therapies, and nutritional and other non-pharmaceutical products, supported by point-of-care diagnostic tools, laboratory services, and monitoring technologies. The company markets its solutions primarily to veterinarians, livestock producers, and pet owners, playing a key role in supporting animal health, food production efficiency, and pet care standards worldwide. Zoetis Inc. operates across the United States and international markets and is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.

Runs with full report Generated: Jul 30, 2026 5:10pm
Price Overview
Price at report time
$73.54
as of Aug 13, 12:28am (10d ago)
Change · Aug 13
-1.81 (-2.40%)
Day Range
$72.00 – $74.39
52-Week Range
$71.45 – $160.48
50-Day MA
$76.52
200-Day MA
$107.68
Volume
6,284,876.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 10d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 414,154,046.00
Float 391,083,081.00
Free Float 94.4%
High free float — 94.4% of shares trade freely, ~5.6% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:28am (10d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:28am (10d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 13, 2026 12:17am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
12.22
Stock Price: $72.51
EPS (Diluted): 6.02
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
9.80
Stock Price: $72.51
Total Equity: $3.33B
Shares: 443,835,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
8.01
Market Cap: $31.14B
Total Debt: $9.04B
Cash: $2.31B
EBITDA: $4.91B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$39.3B
Market Cap: $31.14B
Total Debt: $9.04B
Cash: $2.31B
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
71.8%
Gross Profit: $6.80B
Revenue: $9.47B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
46.7%
Operating Income: $4.42B
Revenue: $9.47B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
28.2%
Net Income: $2.67B
Revenue: $9.47B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
80.2%
Net Income: $2.67B
Total Equity: $3.33B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
35.0%
Operating Income: $4.42B
Tax Rate: 20.4%
Equity: $3.33B
Total Debt: $9.04B
Cash: $2.31B
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
3.03
Current Assets: $6.77B
Current Liabilities: $2.24B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
2.71
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $9.04B
Total Debt: $9.04B
Total Equity: $3.33B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$21.33
Revenue: $9.47B
Shares: 443,835,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$7.51
Total Equity: $3.33B
Shares: 443,835,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$5.14
Operating CF: $2.90B
CapEx: -$621.00M
Shares: 443,835,000
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
2.8%
Last Dividend: $2.09
Stock Price: $72.51
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
Dividends Paid: N/A
Net Income: $2.67B
Dividends paid not available in cash flow statement
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 13, 2026 12:17am
Compares ZTS against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:28am (10d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $7.8B $8.1B $8.5B $9.3B $9.5B
Cost of Revenue $2.3B $2.5B $2.6B $2.7B $2.7B
Gross Profit $5.5B $5.6B $6.0B $6.5B $6.8B
Operating Expenses $2.0B $2.0B $2.2B $2.3B $2.4B
Operating Income $3.5B $3.6B $3.8B $4.2B $4.4B
Net Income $2.0B $2.1B $2.3B $2.5B $2.7B
EBITDA $3.9B $4.1B $4.3B $4.7B $4.9B
EPS $4.29 $4.51 $5.08 $5.47 $6.03
EPS (Diluted) $4.27 $4.49 $5.07 $5.47 $6.02
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 5:02pm (24d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $3.5B $3.6B $2.0B $2.0B $2.3B
Total Current Assets $6.9B $7.5B $6.3B $6.0B $6.8B
Total Assets $13.9B $14.9B $14.3B $14.2B $15.5B
Current Liabilities $1.8B $3.2B $1.9B $3.4B $2.2B
Long-Term Debt $6.6B $6.6B $6.6B $5.2B $9.0B
Total Liabilities $9.4B $10.5B $9.3B $9.5B $12.1B
Total Equity $4.5B $4.4B $5.0B $4.8B $3.3B
Retained Earnings $7.2B $8.7B $10.3B $12.0B $13.7B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:28am (10d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $2.2B $1.9B $2.4B $3.0B $2.9B
Capital Expenditure -$477.0M -$586.0M -$732.0M -$655.0M -$621.0M
Free Cash Flow $1.7B $1.3B $1.6B $2.3B $2.3B
Acquisitions (net)
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) -$600.0M $1.3B -$1.4B $0 $498.0M
Dividends Paid
Stock Buybacks -$743.0M -$1.6B -$1.1B -$1.9B -$3.2B
Net Change in Cash -$119.0M $96.0M -$1.5B -$54.0M $325.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:28am (10d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +3.9% +5.7% +8.3% +2.3%
Gross Profit Growth +2.8% +6.3% +9.3% +4.0%
Operating Income Growth +4.2% +5.9% +10.1% +4.8%
Net Income Growth +3.8% +10.9% +6.1% +7.5%
EBITDA Growth +4.1% +5.9% +9.1% +4.1%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 13, 2026 12:11am (10d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-07-20 $0.53
2026-04-20 $0.53
2026-01-20 $0.53
2025-10-31 $0.50
2025-07-18 $0.50
2025-04-21 $0.50
2025-01-21 $0.50
2024-10-31 $0.43
2024-07-18 $0.43
2024-04-18 $0.43
2024-01-18 $0.43
2023-10-31 $0.38
2023-07-20 $0.38
2023-04-20 $0.38
2023-01-19 $0.38
2022-10-31 $0.33
2022-07-20 $0.33
2022-04-20 $0.33
2022-01-19 $0.33
2021-10-28 $0.25
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 17 computed · 6 not applicable · 1 not yet run
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-20 09:17
1.3 : 1 recovery upside vs repeat-quarter downside
Recovery pays +16%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 12%. Ratio 1.3:1.
CaseGrowthMarginFair valuevs price ($73.54)
Bull — recovery +4% 31.8% $85.33 +16%
Base — stabilizes +3% 27.7% $71.77 -2%
Bear — keeps slipping +1% 23.5% $59.29 -19%
Stress — last quarter repeats -0% 27.7% $64.77 -12%
The next quarters keep the trajectory of the worst recent matched quarter (ending 2026-06-30) — growth stays at -0.2% and margins bend by the same profit-vs-revenue ratio (×1.00). Stress is a trajectory, not a prediction — it answers "what if the ship's current heading simply continues," which history says is the case to respect.
Why this is appearing: this company files quarterly, so its recent trajectory could be measured rather than assumed — the engine matched Jun 2026, Mar 2026 against the same quarters one year earlier and found revenue +1.2% · net income -2.7% year-over-year. That measured heading is what the stress case extends forward. Of those, the stress case extends the worst matched quarter — the one ending Jun 30, 2026 (revenue -0.2% YoY) — not the average. Data measured through Jun 30, 2026 — this card recalculates automatically when the next quarterly filing is ingested. Companies without quarterly filings (many foreign listings) never show this card: with no measured trajectory, there is nothing honest to repeat.
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for ZTS — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-13
The creme is there an opportunity here? Conditional opportunity
AI is a volume tailwind here, not a threat — it relieves the veterinarian bottleneck that actually caps Zoetis's dose consumption, provided the diagnostics leg doesn't get skimmed by AI-native interpretation.
Exposure is only 38 and position 63: the monetized unit is a physical prescription dose behind a regulatory dossier, so intermediation and DIY risks score high (52/83) but the payoff is asymmetric if AI adds clinic capacity into a 71.8% gross-margin portfolio. The kill switch is diagnostics: entrant compression at 54 is the weakest structural score, and if AI image interpretation migrates into practice-management software, Zoetis's fastest-growing leg becomes an instrument-placement business with commoditized reads. Watch diagnostics organic growth versus instrument placements, and channel mix shifting toward online pharmacies — the second is where pricing power quietly leaks; note the -3.9% share gap is competitive and safety-driven, not AI, so don't credit or blame this lens for it.
63
AI Position
Mildly favorable - physical moat, AI works on the bottleneck not the product
Zoetis sells regulated molecules and doses that cheap intelligence cannot synthesize, while AI attacks the veterinary labor shortage that actually caps how many animals get treated — a net volume tailwind with a contained software-side flank in diagnostics.
Exposure 38 Confidence 66 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

Clinic throughput, not pet-owner willingness to pay, is the binding constraint on companion-animal drug consumption; AI triage, image interpretation (Vetscan Imagyst-style) and clinic admin automation raise visits-per-vet, and every incremental visit pulls Zoetis parasiticides, derm and monoclonals with it.

Primary Pressure

The diagnostics leg — where Zoetis is pushing growth against IDEXX and Mars — is the one part of the portfolio that is mostly information processing; AI-native image/lab interpretation can be bundled cheaply into practice-management software or reference labs, compressing the per-test economics Zoetis is building on.

Critical Hinge

Whether AI-assisted diagnostics accrues to Zoetis as therapy attach-rate and razor-blade consumable volume, or leaks to whoever owns the clinic software layer. Watch diagnostics segment organic growth and Imagyst installed-base/test-volume disclosure versus instrument placements alone.

Hard to Reproduce

FDA-CVM/USDA/EMA approved dossiers across 100+ countries, biologics and vaccine manufacturing plants, and a direct veterinarian field force with prescription-channel trust — none of which get cheaper because code does.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 93
Animals get sick and need protein-chain health management regardless of intelligence cost.
Parasite prevention, vaccination, pain control and livestock disease management are biological needs; no amount of cheap cognition removes the requirement for an administered compound.
US pet ownership and visit trends · global protein production volumes · livestock vaccination mandates
relevance 68 · confidence 88
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 81
The solution is a physical dose or biologic, not an information product.
Librela, Apoquel, Simparica and vaccines are manufactured molecules delivered under prescription; AI can change how they are chosen and dosed but not that they must be made and administered.
biologics share of revenue mix · nutraceutical/DTC substitution trends · label-expansion approvals
relevance 74 · confidence 80
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 57
Cheap AI accelerates Zoetis's discovery more than it copies its products, except in diagnostics software.
Regulatory trials and manufacturing gate animal-health R&D, so AI compresses only the earliest step; the exception is diagnostic interpretation, where the value is pure inference and therefore commoditizable.
R&D spend per approval trend · third-party AI vet imaging launches · time from candidate to field trial
relevance 56 · confidence 62
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 71
Zoetis carries regulatory, pharmacovigilance and product-liability weight vets will not assume.
Veterinarians prescribe against a manufacturer's approved label and indemnity; the Librela safety debate itself shows the liability sits with Zoetis, which is exactly why no clinic wants to own the compound.
adverse-event reporting on monoclonals · label restriction actions · litigation disclosures
relevance 58 · confidence 70
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 68
As software gets abundant, approved dossiers, sterile plants and vet relationships get relatively rarer.
Zoetis's scarce assets are multi-jurisdiction registrations, vaccine/biologic capacity and a field force embedded in clinic buying decisions — all capital, time and trust, none reproducible by inference.
manufacturing capex and capacity adds · country registration count · field-force productivity metrics
relevance 72 · confidence 68
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 83
No clinic or feedlot will manufacture its own monoclonal antibody or vaccine.
Internalization requires GMP manufacturing and regulatory approval, not software; the only DIY risk is corporate vet groups pushing private-label generics on off-patent molecules.
corporate group private-label programs · compounding pharmacy encroachment · generic penetration on key SKUs
relevance 42 · confidence 78
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 52
AI can re-route where the dose is bought even though it cannot remove the dose.
Agentic pet-owner assistants plus online pharmacies increase price comparison and shift the purchase away from the clinic counter where Zoetis's field force has most influence.
retail/online channel mix disclosure · direct-to-consumer script capture rate · price realization by channel
relevance 56 · confidence 58
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 62
Real proprietary diagnostic-image, reference-lab and livestock-genetics data, but weak compounding loop.
Imagyst image libraries and cattle genomic datasets improve Zoetis's own models and precision-livestock offers; the feedback loop is not exclusive enough to lock out lab or software rivals with comparable volume.
reference lab sample volume growth · genetics/precision livestock revenue · data-sharing deals with clinic software
relevance 54 · confidence 58
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 61
Some SG&A and trial-design leverage, but margin gains here come mostly from mix, not AI.
Gross margin rose 70.4%→71.8% and operating margin 44.7%→46.7% on pricing and portfolio mix; AI can trim commercial and clinical-ops cost, yet a large field force and physical COGS cap the conversion.
SG&A as percent of revenue · field-force headcount versus revenue · clinical trial cost per program
relevance 58 · confidence 62
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 74
The unit is a dose or a test per animal — immune to seat compression.
Zoetis is not billed by labor hours or software seats, so AI-driven productivity in customer workflows expands rather than shrinks the billable unit.
volume versus price contribution split · doses per treated animal trends · diagnostics consumable pull-through
relevance 70 · confidence 72
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 54
Cheap software lowers entry into vet diagnostics and clinic tools, not into approved therapeutics.
AI-native startups can credibly attack image interpretation and clinic decision support; they cannot replicate a global registration portfolio or sterile biologics capacity, so the flank is the growth leg not the core.
funding into AI vet diagnostics · IDEXX/Mars AI product launches · share trend versus 6.2% industry growth
relevance 60 · confidence 64

AI Lens thesis

AI reaches Zoetis on three separate wires with different signs: R&D (cheaper target/antibody design for animal biologics — modest, since the gating item is field trials and regulatory review, not molecule ideation); diagnostics (genuinely software-exposed, where AI both enables Zoetis's own point-of-care franchise and lets outsiders interpret images without owning the instrument); and demand (AI relieving the veterinarian-hours bottleneck and pet-owner triage friction, which is volume-accretive to a company whose revenue unit is doses and tests, not seats or hours). Because the monetized unit is a physical dose administered under a prescription and a liability chain, cheap intelligence cannot disintermediate the sale — it can only re-route the channel toward online pharmacies, which changes Zoetis's mix and price transparency more than its unit demand. Net: the shield holds, the upside is real but second-order, and the share-loss problem visible in the numbers is a patent/product-safety/competition story that AI neither caused nor cures.

Thesis breaker If an AI-native diagnostic interpretation layer wins in practice-management software and Zoetis's diagnostics revenue decelerates while instrument placements keep rising, the growth leg is being hollowed out. Conversely, sustained mid-single-digit companion-animal volume growth alongside flat vet headcount would confirm the throughput mechanism.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Veterinary labor scarcity is the real ceiling on companion-animal spend; if AI adds even 10-15% effective clinic capacity, Zoetis captures that as pure volume on 72% gross margin product with no incremental commercial spend.

Downside AI-mediated pet-owner triage plus price-transparent online pharmacies erodes the vet's role as the point of purchase, turning branded parasiticides into shelf-compared SKUs and weakening the pricing power that has driven operating margin from 44.7% to 46.7%.

Outcome range spread 32

45Bear case
62Central case
77Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-13 00:27:21
Verdict Fairly valued with mild upside — fair value $70-80 range, current $72.51 sits at the low end; own for 7% FCF yield and defensive characteristics, not for a re-rating.

Looking at the raw print first: ZTS is doing $9.47B TTM revenue growing ~5% annually, with net margins that have held between 25-30% every quarter for two years. The most recent quarter (Q2 2026) shows $2.47B rev / $691M NI — flat YoY on revenue ($2.47B vs $2.47B in Q2 2025) and down slightly on earnings ($691M vs $726M, margin 28% vs 29.3%). That's the tell: revenue has genuinely stalled at the ~$2.4B quarterly run-rate for six quarters running. The 5.3% revenue CAGR is backward-looking; the forward run-rate is closer to 2-3%. FCF of $2.28B on a $31B market cap is a 7.3% FCF yield, and the 12.2x P/E on a business with 35% ROIC and 72% gross margins is genuinely cheap on absolute terms.

Where I diverge from the synthesis: the "slight upside to $76.88" verdict feels roughly right in direction but the composite fair value of $85.65 leans on growth assumptions the quarterly tape is actively contradicting. Market Forces' "deteriorating compounder / value trap" framing is too dark — a business generating $2.28B FCF with 47% operating margins isn't deteriorating, it's plateauing. But the Thesis Evaluation's neutral zero score is intellectually honest, and the bear point about D/E going from 1.32 to 2.71 is the single most important number in this file that nobody is stressing enough. Total debt $9.04B against $3.33B equity, funded partly by buybacks — that's the classic late-cycle mature-pharma playbook where financial engineering substitutes for organic growth. It works until it doesn't, and it caps multiple expansion.

The contrarian case against my own mild-bull lean: if companion animal is genuinely hitting a 3% growth ceiling (plausible given pet adoption normalization post-COVID and consumer discretionary weakness on vet visits), then this is a $9.5B revenue business growing 2-3% with maybe 50-100bps of annual margin risk from GLP-1-style competitive dynamics in parasiticides (Librela/Solensia face real competition, and Simparica Trio's moat isn't infinite). At 3% growth and flat margins, DCF fair value is closer to $65-70, not $85. The insider "activity" is entirely small award grants — 45 to 616 shares each — this is routine comp vesting, not a signal. The thesis eval flagging "coordinated insider buying" as a 58-weight bull point is wrong; there are no open-market purchases here. That's a model error worth calling out.

Net read: I partially agree with the synthesis direction but think the magnitude is overstated. At $72.51, you're paying 13.6x FCF for a 47% operating margin animal health monopolist with real but decelerating growth and a levered balance sheet. That's fair-to-slightly-cheap, not a screaming buy. Fair value band is $70-80 depending on whether you believe organic growth reaccelerates to 5%+ or settles at 2-3%. The re-rating from $160 to $72 already priced in the deceleration; further downside requires either an actual earnings miss or a leverage-driven credit event, neither imminent. Upside requires either a pipeline surprise (parasiticide franchise extension, new companion animal indication) or multiple re-rating back toward specialty pharma comps at 18-20x, which needs a growth catalyst that isn't visible in the Q2 2026 print. I'd own it for the FCF yield and dividend, not for the compounding story — the compounding story is what got crushed from $160 to $72 and it isn't coming back at these growth rates.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-13 00:27:37
Verdict Undervalued at $72.51 — the market is pricing Zoetis like a fading ex-growth pharma, but current cash generation and ~28% net margins support fair value closer to $85-$90.

What jumps out first is how little operational damage there is in the numbers relative to how hard the stock has been de-rated. Zoetis has grown revenue from $7.78B in 2021 to $9.47B in 2025, a 5%+ annual clip, while net income rose from $2.04B to $2.67B and operating income from $3.47B to $4.42B. This is not a business showing obvious franchise erosion: gross margin is still 71.8%, operating margin 46.7%, and net margin 28.2%, which are elite for a large-cap healthcare name. The quarterly run-rate is similarly steady rather than crumbling. The last four quarters sum to roughly $9.53B of revenue and about $2.65B of net income, almost exactly in line with the 2025 full-year earnings power. Even the “slowdown” looks mild: the most recent quarter at $2.47B was flat year over year against a tough compare, while the March quarter grew from $2.20B to $2.26B and net income held around the mid- to high-20s margin band. That profile does not scream value trap.

At $72.51, the valuation looks too cheap for that quality, and I think the headline multiples are telling the right story more than the scarier narrative. A ~$31.1B market cap against $2.67B of annual net income is about 11.7x earnings; against $2.28B of free cash flow it is about 13.7x FCF; and enterprise value is only about 8.0x EBITDA. For a company earning ~35% ROIC and ~17% ROA with a current ratio above 3x, those are depressed multiples unless one assumes a real step-down in growth or margins. The market seems to be capitalizing Zoetis as a no-growth or low-single-digit grower with some hidden fragility, but the reported numbers still show compounding, not decay. Importantly, this is not a low-quality earnings story: $2.90B of operating cash flow against $2.67B of net income is healthy conversion, and after $621M of capex the company still throws off over $2.2B of annual FCF. If that cash generation merely holds flat, the current price is not demanding.

The balance sheet is the one legitimate blemish, but even there I think the stock discount overshoots the risk. Debt of $9.04B against $2.31B of cash leaves net debt around $6.7B, which is meaningful relative to $3.33B of equity and explains the optically high 2.7x debt-to-equity and nearly 80% ROE. But the business earns enough that leverage is manageable rather than thesis-breaking: operating income of $4.42B and EBITDA implied by the EV multiple suggest substantial debt service capacity. In other words, leverage has juiced returns metrics, but it has not yet overwhelmed the economics. For a stable animal-health leader with durable pricing, recurring demand, and margins this high, a modestly levered balance sheet should not force a 12x earnings multiple unless deterioration is imminent. I don’t see imminent deterioration in the data provided.

The best bear case is that the market is sniffing out a business moving from “premium compounder” to “mature cash cow” faster than the income statement admits. Annual revenue growth slowed to 2.3% from 2024 to 2025, and the recent quarterly pattern is basically flat around $2.4B to $2.5B. If organic growth settles near 2%-3% while buybacks or capital structure effects flatter per-share metrics, then 12x earnings is less absurd than it looks. The leverage also matters more in that scenario: with debt at $9.04B and equity only $3.33B, management has less room for capital allocation mistakes, and the high ROE is clearly balance-sheet-aided. I also would not give any weight to the insider tape here; these are award grants, not open-market buys, so they do not signal conviction. A smart skeptic would say this is simply a very good business now priced like a very good but ex-growth business, and there is not enough evidence in two or three quarters of flattish sales to call that wrong.

What would change my mind is straightforward. If the next few quarters show revenue rolling over below the $2.3B-$2.4B level with net margin slipping toward the low-20s, then the current multiple is a value trap and deserves to stay compressed. Likewise, if free cash flow falls materially below $2.0B annualized while debt remains around current levels, I would stop treating the leverage as benign. On the other hand, if Zoetis can keep revenue around $9.6B-$9.8B, preserve operating margin near 45%-47%, and continue generating $2.3B+ of FCF, the stock should not sit at 11x-12x earnings for long. My bias is that the market has overreacted to deceleration and is undervaluing a still-exceptional franchise.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-13 00:28:09
Verdict High-quality mature earner at 12.2x PE / ~7.3% FCF yield / 8x EV/EBITDA looks undervalued vs mid-$80s fair value if 28% margins hold

The numbers describe a fortress P&L that the market has decided to price like a fading generic. Zoetis just put up $9.47B of 2025 revenue at a 71.8% gross margin, 46.7% operating margin and 28.2% net margin, converting that into $2.90B of operating cash and $2.28B of free cash flow after a modest $621M capex burden. Trailing net income of $2.67B against a $31.1B equity value is a 12.2x P/E and roughly 7.3% FCF yield, with a 2.8% dividend tacked on. Those are commodity-drug multiples on a business that still prints mid-to-high-20s net margins quarter after quarter—latest print $2.47B revenue and $691M net income at 28%. Five-year revenue CAGR of 5.3% and earnings CAGR of 6.8% are not spectacular, but they are real, and FCF has compounded faster at 18.7% as working capital and capex stayed disciplined. The story the raw data tell is simple: cash generation and margin durability remain intact even as top-line growth has cooled to a recent 2.3% YoY pace and a flat $2.47B June quarter versus the year-ago period.

What stands out against the models is how cleanly the de-rating has outrun the fundamental deceleration. The stock has been cut from a prior premium-pharma regime (~30x) to 8.0x EV/EBITDA and 3.4x sales while operating income still climbed from $3.47B in 2021 to $4.42B in 2025 and net margins held or expanded. The balance sheet is the legitimate scar: $9.04B of debt against only $3.33B of equity and $2.31B of cash produces a 2.71 debt-to-equity ratio and an optically stellar 80% ROE that is clearly leverage-amplified. That capital structure almost certainly funded buybacks, and it leaves less cushion if growth stalls further. Yet ROIC is still 35%, the current ratio is 3.0, and absolute free cash flow covers interest and dividends with room to spare. I also discount the “coordinated insider buying” bull point in the thesis layer—every recent filing is an A-Award grant, not open-market accumulation—so that signal is noise. The quantitative slight-upside call toward the mid-$70s to mid-$80s looks directionally right; the “deteriorating compounder / value trap” market-forces read overweights the leverage narrative relative to the still-excellent cash conversion and margin stability actually visible in the statements.

The strongest case against owning it here is that the growth engine has already downshifted into the zone the bears warned about. Revenue growth of 2.3% trailing, a literally flat June quarter, and a five-year top-line CAGR that has compressed toward the low single digits mean the market may simply be correctly marking this as a 1–3% terminal grower. If companion-animal spending saturates or livestock cycles turn, that 12x multiple stops looking cheap and starts looking like fair value for a no-growth cash cow carrying net debt of roughly $6.7B. The thin equity base magnifies any earnings miss into a balance-sheet event, and FCF growth will inevitably converge toward the slower earnings growth once buyback-driven optical leverage fades. A smart opponent would also note that 95% of the price is already explained by DCF in the narrative layer—there is no hidden story premium to collapse, but equally little margin of safety if the 28% net margin proves peak-cycle. I weigh those points seriously, but I still put more weight on the fact that margins have not compressed, FCF quality remains high, and an 8x EV/EBITDA / 7%+ FCF yield already embeds a great deal of that pessimism.

I would flip to a fair-value or overvalued stance if the next two reported quarters show revenue growth stuck at or below 1–2% accompanied by any meaningful operating-margin erosion below the mid-40s, or if net debt rises further without a corresponding acceleration in organic growth. Conversely, a clean re-acceleration to 5%+ organic revenue growth with stable margins, or a visible multi-quarter debt pay-down that rebuilds the equity base, would push me from moderate to high conviction on the undervaluation.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 7.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 5.0
fairly valued · conviction 3/5 · Δ -2.3 vs panel · self: 6.0
GPT gpt-5.4 9.0
undervalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ +1.7 vs panel · self: 7.0
Grok grok-4.5 8.0
undervalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 6.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-13 00:59:53
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality - starter position, add on weakness 6/10
High-quality animal health franchise at fair value with a broken narrative - patient scale-in below $70, not a table-pound here.
The cruxWhether the Librela safety overhang and back-to-back guide-downs mark a permanent step-down to low-single-digit growth or a transient reset - that single question decides if $73.54 is fair or cheap.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from ZTS's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+69
Strong
edge √Σ 136 · risk √Σ 51 · conf 8/10

Zoetis shows the profile of a durable specialty pharma: revenue compounded from $7.78B (2021) to $9.47B (2025), gross margin expanded from 70.4% to 71.8%, and operating margin climbed steadily from 44.7% to 46.7%. Net income rose every year to $2.67B and FCF reached $2.28B in 2025, with OCF/NI at 1.05x and accruals at -1% of assets - earnings are backed by cash. Beneish M of -2.44 and Altman Z of 4.73 corroborate clean books. Capital allocation favors shareholders: diluted share count fell from 476.7M to 443.8M (-1.8% CAGR), SBC is a trivial 0.9% of revenue, and buybacks run 25x SBC. The offset is a net debt position of roughly $6.7B against $2.3B cash; leverage is real but very serviceable against $2.3B in annual FCF and 46.7% operating margins. Insider tape shows only routine equity awards - no directional buys or sells to read into. Taken together this is a high-quality mature earner with expanding margins, disciplined share count, and pristine earnings quality. The one thing keeping it out of fortress territory is the leveraged balance sheet - net debt rather than net cash - which limits it to a constraint rather than a cushion.

Strengths 4
m78
Expanding margins on growing revenue
Revenue up ~22% over 4 years to $9.47B while gross margin widened 140bps to 71.8% and operating margin widened 200bps to 46.7% - operating leverage is real, not story.
m72
Elite earnings quality
OCF/NI 1.05x, accruals -1% of assets, Beneish M -2.44, Altman Z 4.73. Nothing mechanical suggests aggressive accounting; NI is cash-backed.
m65
Genuine buyback discipline
Diluted shares fell from 476.7M to 443.8M (-1.8% CAGR) with SBC only 0.9% of revenue and buyback/SBC ratio of 25x - per-share value is being concentrated.
m55
FCF reliability
FCF of $1.74B, $1.33B, $1.62B, $2.30B, $2.28B - consistently positive and inflecting higher; comfortably covers debt service and buybacks.
Concerns 2
m45
Net debt position
Net debt of ~$6.73B against $2.31B cash means the balance sheet is a constraint, not a cushion. Serviceable against $2.28B FCF but not fortress-grade.
m25
Modest top-line deceleration
Revenue growth slowed from ~8.4% (2023-24) to ~2.3% (2024-25). One data point, but worth watching for whether the mature-earner story is now closer to low-single-digit organic.
This looks like a genuinely high-quality animal health franchise. Margins are expanding at 70%+ gross and mid-40s operating, cash conversion is clean, and management is quietly shrinking the share count while barely diluting via SBC. The books read as honest - none of the earnings-quality tripwires fire. What holds me back from a fortress call is the balance sheet: $6.7B net debt means a shock would bite, and revenue growth just stepped down to ~2%. Still, as a business in isolation, this is comfortably in the 'strong, well-run' bucket - the kind of durable compounder profile you rarely find flawed on the operating side.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Debt maturity ladder and average interest rate on the ~$9B gross debt
  • Organic vs FX/acquired revenue growth in 2025 to confirm underlying demand
  • Concentration risk in key franchises (Simparica Trio, Librela, Apoquel) and patent/exclusivity timelines
  • Any pending litigation or regulatory issues on newer monoclonal antibody products
  • R&D productivity and pipeline replenishment given mature-earner classification
Valuation / Mispricing
+4
Fairly Valued
edge √Σ 57 · risk √Σ 53 · conf 5/10
price $73.54 vs deserved roughly $70-$80 - within a fair-value band, no clear discount attractive below $60.00

Without a fresh DCF or peer multiple set in the brief, I anchor on what Zoetis is: the category-leading animal health pure-play with durable companion-animal growth (Simparica Trio, Librela, Solensia), high-teens to low-20s operating margins, and consistent double-digit EPS growth historically. That profile typically deserves a premium multiple (mid-20s to low-30s P/E). At $73.54 and a roughly $30B market cap, the stock is well off its prior highs near $200, suggesting the market has already repriced growth expectations lower on Librela safety headlines and slowing companion-animal spend. That derating brings valuation from stretched toward reasonable, but not into obvious-bargain territory. The deserved value on a normalized earnings power basis sits broadly in line with today's price - call it a mid-$60s to mid-$80s band depending on how much of the Librela overhang and consumer softness one treats as permanent versus transient. That is fair, not cheap. To underwrite meaningful upside I would want either a lower entry that builds in a real margin of safety, or evidence that Librela concerns are contained and companion-animal script growth is reaccelerating. Neither is in hand at $73.54.

Cheap signals 2
m45
Sharp derating from prior highs
Stock has been cut roughly in half from peak levels near $200, compressing the premium multiple this franchise historically commanded and removing much of the priced-for-perfection risk.
m35
Durable category leadership
Pure-play animal health leader with parasiticide and osteoarthritis pain franchises supports a deserved premium multiple; at a market cap near $30B the business is not being valued as a high-quality compounder anymore.
Rich / priced-in 2
m40
No explicit margin of safety
With no fair-value composite provided and the stock trading in a plausible fair-value band, there is no quantified gap to exploit; buying here is paying roughly deserved value.
m35
Librela and consumer overhang not fully resolved
Safety signal debate on Librela and softer companion-animal visit trends can compress both growth and multiple further; current price does not obviously discount a worse outcome.
I read this as fair, not cheap. The derating from $200 has taken the froth out, but $73.54 sits inside the range a skeptical owner would call deserved for a quality franchise facing a real but uncertain product overhang. I want a clearer discount - closer to $60 - before I would call it a valuation-driven buy; between here and there it is a hold-and-watch, not a table-pound.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Latest quarterly organic revenue growth by species (companion vs livestock)
  • Librela US label status, adverse-event disclosures, and script trajectory
  • Updated full-year guidance and operating margin trajectory
  • Buyback pace and net leverage at current share price
  • Peer multiples (IDXX, ELAN) for relative anchoring
General Sentiment
-53
Headwind
tail √Σ 30 · head √Σ 89 · conf 7/10

The market tape is mildly risk-on (VIX 14.6, S&P near highs), but that lift barely reaches ZTS. With a 0.73 beta and a defensive healthcare profile, this name doesn't ride euphoric tapes; it lives or dies by its own narrative, and that narrative just cracked. Two consecutive guide-downs (the May -21.5% crash to a 7-year low, then the August full-year cut) have punctured the 'durable steady-compounder' story that justified the premium multiple. Intensity is minimal and durability was rated durable, but the recent news flow is actively eroding both. Analyst tone is 'cautiously optimistic' - code for waiting-and-seeing, not defending - and the Barchart piece explicitly frames ZTS as an underperformer. Michael Burry adding to his ZTS stake is a mild contrarian tailwind (value-name signaling) but it's paired in the same headlines with his AI-bubble shorts, so the tape is coding ZTS as a defensive hide-out, not a story stock people chase. Net: the narrative is fading, not broken outright, while macro (10y at 4.7%, market PE 26) offers no rerating help for a mature healthcare compounder. Pressure leans negative but not violent - a persistent crosswind, not a collapse.

Tailwinds 1
m30
Burry adding stake - contrarian value signal
Burry building a ZTS position while shorting AI names frames ZTS as a value hide-out. Modest positive optics but a low-cult, low-intensity narrative won't ignite from one 13F headline.
Headwinds 4
m62
Compounder narrative cracked by back-to-back guide-downs
The May -21.5% crash and August guide cut have broken the 'durable mid-single-digit grower' story that anchored the premium. Once a steady-compounder loses the steady label, multiple compression bleeds slowly.
m45
Analyst tone is defensive, not defending
'Cautiously optimistic' coverage and think-pieces asking 'what went wrong' signal a sell-side unwilling to bang the table. No upward revision impulse to catch the falling knife.
m35
Low beta mutes the risk-on tailwind
Beta 0.73 in a mildly risk-on tape means ZTS gets little lift from the broader bid; defensive healthcare is out of the rotation flow chasing AI and cyclicals.
m28
Rates and market PE offer no rerating tailwind
10y 4.7% and market PE 26 cap the multiple ceiling for mature healthcare compounders. No macro lift to overwrite the story damage.
I read this as a persistent, ordinary headwind - not a rout. The story that justified ZTS's premium (durable compounder, pricing power, vet stickiness) just took two body blows in one quarter, and the market is quietly re-rating it from 'steady compounder' to 'mature healthcare with execution questions.' The risk-on tape doesn't help a low-beta defensive, and analysts are hedging rather than defending. Burry's stake is a mild offset but not a catalyst. Net pressure leans negative and will stay that way until a clean print reasserts the durability claim.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Next quarterly print - does companion animal weakness stabilize or deepen
  • Any competitive commentary on Librela / parasiticide franchises
  • Analyst target revisions - watch for downgrades that would confirm narrative decay
  • Whether Burry's stake grows or exits at next 13F - could shift the contrarian read
  • Sector rotation into defensives if the risk-on tape falters
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+38
Mildly favorable - physical moat, AI works on the bottleneck not the product
opp √Σ 95 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10

AI reaches Zoetis on three separate wires with different signs: R&D (cheaper target/antibody design for animal biologics — modest, since the gating item is field trials and regulatory review, not molecule ideation); diagnostics (genuinely software-exposed, where AI both enables Zoetis's own point-of-care franchise and lets outsiders interpret images without owning the instrument); and demand (AI relieving the veterinarian-hours bottleneck and pet-owner triage friction, which is volume-accretive to a company whose revenue unit is doses and tests, not seats or hours). Because the monetized unit is a physical dose administered under a prescription and a liability chain, cheap intelligence cannot disintermediate the sale — it can only re-route the channel toward online pharmacies, which changes Zoetis's mix and price transparency more than its unit demand. Net: the shield holds, the upside is real but second-order, and the share-loss problem visible in the numbers is a patent/product-safety/competition story that AI neither caused nor cures.

AI opportunities 8
m58
Underlying Need Persistence
Animals get sick and need protein-chain health management regardless of intelligence cost.
m46
Solution Persistence
The solution is a physical dose or biologic, not an information product.
m24
Responsibility Transfer
Zoetis carries regulatory, pharmacovigilance and product-liability weight vets will not assume.
m26
Scarcity Migration
As software gets abundant, approved dossiers, sterile plants and vet relationships get relatively rarer.
m28
Customer DIY Preference
No clinic or feedlot will manufacture its own monoclonal antibody or vaccine.
m13
Data Leverage
Real proprietary diagnostic-image, reference-lab and livestock-genetics data, but weak compounding loop.
m13
AI Margin Conversion
Some SG&A and trial-design leverage, but margin gains here come mostly from mix, not AI.
m34
Revenue Unit Durability
The unit is a dose or a test per animal — immune to seat compression.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

AI is a volume tailwind here, not a threat — it relieves the veterinarian bottleneck that actually caps Zoetis's dose consumption, provided the diagnostics leg doesn't get skimmed by AI-native interpretation. Exposure is only 38 and position 63: the monetized unit is a physical prescription dose behind a regulatory dossier, so intermediation and DIY risks score high (52/83) but the payoff is asymmetric if AI adds clinic capacity into a 71.8% gross-margin portfolio. The kill switch is diagnostics: entrant compression at 54 is the weakest structural score, and if AI image interpretation migrates into practice-management software, Zoetis's fastest-growing leg becomes an instrument-placement business with commoditized reads. Watch diagnostics organic growth versus instrument placements, and channel mix shifting toward online pharmacies — the second is where pricing power quietly leaks; note the -3.9% share gap is competitive and safety-driven, not AI, so don't credit or blame this lens for it.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • biologics share of revenue mix
  • nutraceutical/DTC substitution trends
  • label-expansion approvals
  • manufacturing capex and capacity adds
  • country registration count
  • field-force productivity metrics
  • volume versus price contribution split
  • doses per treated animal trends
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Higher +12.6% v0.6.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Aug 13, 2026, ZTS was $73.54. We expect it to be $82.80 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $60.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 13, 2026.

Price when predicted$73.54
Our estimate for Feb 2027$82.80+12.6%
Great value below$60.00
Price history shown (6 Months)

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.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for ZTS. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06