Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Gilead Sciences, Inc.
How Gilead Sciences, Inc. stacks up
GILD · against 20 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Valuation
8/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #21 of 21 · scores higher than 0% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score1 peers with a valuation score of 0–9, including GILD · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 8?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly because of its earnings yield, which is weaker than most Healthcare peers.
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. Earnings yield: -1.6% vs peer median 1.5%
- Negative (a loss or cash outflow), so it counts as zero whatever the share price. EBITDA yield: -0.9% vs peer median 4.0%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 85% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 6.2% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = GILD, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | GILD | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 21 reported | -1.6% | 3.7% | 0% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 21 reported | 6.4% | 6.6% | 40% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 20 reported | 6.2% | 4.7% | 68% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 20 reported | 5.7% | 17.9% | 11% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around GILD| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 177.5B USD | 92 | 71 | |
| 2 | 108.6B USD | 88 | 66 | |
| 3 | 126.1B USD | 83 | 62 | |
| 4 | 162.93T ARS (≈$162.9B) | 82 | 63 | |
| 5 | 116.9B USD | 70 | 47 | |
| 17 | 161.8B USD | 53 | 50 | |
| 17 | 258.2B USD | 53 | 47 | |
| 19 | 126.5B USD | 50 | 56 | |
| 20 | 155.7B USD | 47 | 64 | |
| 21 | 207.7B USD | 8 | 18 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score