Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
How Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited stacks up
TAK · against 51 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Growth
20/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #50 of 52 · scores higher than 2% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score4 peers with a growth score of 20–29, including TAK · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 20?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Mainly because of its revenue growth, which is weaker than most Healthcare peers.
- slower revenue growth over the last year: weaker than 73% of peers. Revenue growth: -1.7% vs peer median 6.1%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 3.8% vs peer median 5.8%
- Earnings per share turned from a profit to a loss. Earnings per share growth: — vs peer median 9.8%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = TAK, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | TAK | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 52 reported | -1.7% | 8.5% | 4% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 43 reported | 78.0% | 12.0% | 90% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 52 reported | 3.8% | 6.4% | 27% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around TAK| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 56.7B USD | 96 | 79 | |
| 2 | 40.2B USD | 92 | 73 | |
| 3 | 56.0B USD | 86 | 39 | |
| 4 | 67.60T KRW (≈$48.7B) | 82 | 72 | |
| 5 | 126.5B USD | 78 | 56 | |
| 47 | 38.9B USD | 36 | 56 | |
| 48 | 64.8B EUR (≈$71.3B) | 29 | 51 | |
| 49 | 36.0B USD | 27 | 46 | |
| 50 | 36.8B USD | 20 | 46 | |
| 50 | 66.3B USD | 20 | 30 | |
| 52 | 91.2B USD | 5 | 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