VOL. XCIV, NO. 247
★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★
PRICE: 0 CENTS
Thursday, January 8, 2026
Eli Lilly and Company
LLY · New York Stock Exchange
Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.
Request update
Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.
Overview
Eli Lilly and Company is a global biopharma company; it reports as a single operating segment, but revenue is disclosed by therapeutic area (Cardiometabolic Health, Oncology, Immunology, Neuroscience, and Other). The moat is primarily legal and innovation-driven: patent/data exclusivity protects major brands (especially tirzepatide as Mounjaro/Zepbound), while large-scale R&D and clinical development capability sustains a pipeline across multiple disease areas. In cardiometabolic health, manufacturing capacity expansion can be a practical advantage when demand outstrips supply. Key risks include patent challenges/LOE, payer and government pricing pressure (including IRA dynamics), and fast-moving competition in specialty indications. Market cap estimate as of 2026-01-05: approx $967B (source: https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/lly/market-cap/).
Primary segment
Cardiometabolic Health
Market structure
Oligopoly
Market share
—
HHI: —
Coverage
5 segments · 11 tags
Updated 2026-01-05
Segments
Cardiometabolic Health
Branded cardiometabolic pharmaceuticals (type 2 diabetes, obesity, and related metabolic/cardiovascular conditions; especially incretin therapies)
Revenue
65.5%
Structure
Oligopoly
Pricing
strong
Share
—
Peers
Oncology
Branded oncology therapeutics (multiple tumor types; includes targeted therapies, biologics, and emerging modalities such as radioligand therapies)
Revenue
19.4%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Immunology
Branded immunology therapeutics (autoimmune and inflammatory diseases; biologics and small molecules)
Revenue
9.8%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Neuroscience
Branded neuroscience therapeutics (e.g., migraine and neurodegeneration including Alzheimer's disease)
Revenue
3.3%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
moderate
Share
—
Peers
Other
Other branded pharmaceuticals and collaboration/other revenue (legacy products, royalties, and smaller franchises)
Revenue
2%
Structure
Competitive
Pricing
weak
Share
—
Peers
Moat Claims
Cardiometabolic Health
Branded cardiometabolic pharmaceuticals (type 2 diabetes, obesity, and related metabolic/cardiovascular conditions; especially incretin therapies)
Revenue share from FY2024 Form 10-K Note 2 'Disaggregation of Revenue': total cardiometabolic health = 21,850.4 (U.S.) + 7,670.5 (outside U.S.) ~ 29,520.9; total revenue = 45,042.7; source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/532457/20250226/FO10K_598879.PDF. U.S. distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers (see 10-K Marketing & Distribution section).
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Key cardiometabolic brands (notably tirzepatide as Mounjaro/Zepbound) are protected by patents and regulatory/data exclusivity, delaying generic/biosimilar entry.
Erosion risks
- Patent litigation or invalidation
- Loss of exclusivity / generic or follow-on competition
- Government price setting (e.g., U.S. IRA) accelerating revenue erosion
Leading indicators
- Key patent challenges/settlements (USPTO, courts)
- Regulatory exclusivity timelines and label expansions
- Gross-to-net and realized price trend in major markets
Counterarguments
- Competitors can win share pre-LOE with superior efficacy/tolerability or better access
- Formulary pressure and rebates can cap pricing despite exclusivity
Capacity Moat
Supply
Capacity Moat
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Incretin demand has periodically exceeded supply; faster expansion of manufacturing and device/presentation options can protect growth and share during supply-constrained periods.
Erosion risks
- Competitors (and CMOs) add capacity, reducing scarcity advantage
- Manufacturing setbacks (quality issues, device constraints)
- Regulatory or legal action against marketing/access practices
Leading indicators
- Reported supply availability/backorder signals by dose/presentation
- Capex and site ramp milestones for new capacity
- Time-to-launch and volume in new geographies
Counterarguments
- Capacity is replicable with capital; not inherently proprietary
- If demand normalizes, capacity ceases to be a differentiator
Learning Curve Yield
Supply
Learning Curve Yield
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Large, specialized R&D organization and clinical trial execution capability improve the odds of discovering and expanding high-value cardiometabolic indications.
Erosion risks
- Competitors match R&D scale via M&A/partnerships
- Clinical failures or safety signals
- Talent retention challenges in hot therapeutic areas
Leading indicators
- Phase 2/3 readouts and regulatory approvals in cardiometabolic pipeline
- R&D spend trend and headcount in key programs
- Real-world outcomes data and label expansions
Counterarguments
- High R&D spend does not guarantee differentiated outcomes
- Smaller biotech entrants can innovate faster in specific modalities
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled commercial and distribution operations support launch execution and payer/channel access; U.S. product distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers.
Erosion risks
- Wholesaler/PBM consolidation increases bargaining power
- Regulatory actions affecting distribution and rebates (e.g., 340B disputes)
Leading indicators
- Formulary access and rebate levels (gross-to-net)
- Concentration of trade receivables among wholesalers
Counterarguments
- Most large pharma companies have comparable commercial infrastructure
- Wholesaler concentration is also a risk (not purely an advantage)
Oncology
Branded oncology therapeutics (multiple tumor types; includes targeted therapies, biologics, and emerging modalities such as radioligand therapies)
Revenue share from FY2024 Form 10-K Note 2 'Disaggregation of Revenue': total oncology = 5,035.8 (U.S.) + 3,716.6 (outside U.S.) ~ 8,752.4; total revenue = 45,042.7; source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/532457/20250226/FO10K_598879.PDF.
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Patent and regulatory exclusivity protects key oncology brands (e.g., Verzenio and Jaypirca) and supports returns on clinical investment until loss of exclusivity.
Erosion risks
- Competing mechanisms-of-action and rapid standard-of-care changes
- Patent challenges / biosimilar entry
- Pricing pressure from payers and health technology assessments
Leading indicators
- Clinical trial readouts vs competing regimens
- Guideline placement and duration of therapy trends
- Patent litigation and regulatory exclusivity timelines
Counterarguments
- Oncology is crowded; differentiation can be temporary
- Combination regimens can shift value to partners/competitors
Learning Curve Yield
Supply
Learning Curve Yield
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled oncology R&D and business development (including radiopharmaceutical capabilities) can improve discovery and clinical execution across multiple indications.
Erosion risks
- Clinical failures or safety issues in late-stage trials
- Innovation from competitors/biotech outpaces internal programs
- Integration risk from M&A
Leading indicators
- Number of late-stage oncology trials and milestone readouts
- Regulatory submissions/approvals in key tumor types
- Deal cadence and acquired IPR&D outcomes
Counterarguments
- Biotech partners/targets are expensive; returns can compress
- New modalities (cell therapy, bispecifics) can leapfrog incumbents
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled commercial and distribution operations support launch execution and payer/channel access; U.S. product distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers.
Erosion risks
- Wholesaler/PBM consolidation increases bargaining power
- Regulatory actions affecting distribution and rebates (e.g., 340B disputes)
Leading indicators
- Formulary access and rebate levels (gross-to-net)
- Concentration of trade receivables among wholesalers
Counterarguments
- Most large pharma companies have comparable commercial infrastructure
- Wholesaler concentration is also a risk (not purely an advantage)
Immunology
Branded immunology therapeutics (autoimmune and inflammatory diseases; biologics and small molecules)
Revenue share from FY2024 Form 10-K Note 2 'Disaggregation of Revenue': total immunology = 2,457.6 (U.S.) + 1,935.3 (outside U.S.) ~ 4,392.9; total revenue = 45,042.7; source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/532457/20250226/FO10K_598879.PDF.
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Patent protection and biologics data protection support exclusivity for key immunology brands (e.g., Taltz, Omvoh), delaying biosimilar competition.
Erosion risks
- Biosimilar entry and price erosion after LOE
- Competitor innovation (new MoAs) displacing standards of care
- Rebate pressure from consolidated PBMs/payers
Leading indicators
- Biosimilar/biobetter pipeline timing vs LOE dates
- Formulary positioning and net price trend
- Clinical differentiation in new indications
Counterarguments
- Immunology markets are highly competitive with many alternatives
- Large payers can force price concessions even pre-LOE
Learning Curve Yield
Supply
Learning Curve Yield
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Deep immunology R&D focus and partnerships/M&A can compound learning across targets and trial execution.
Erosion risks
- Clinical readouts fail or safety signals emerge
- R&D productivity declines despite spend
- Regulatory delays or label restrictions
Leading indicators
- Phase 2/3 immunology readouts and approvals
- R&D spend allocated to immunology programs
- New target modalities entering clinic
Counterarguments
- Smaller innovators can produce first-in-class assets and outcompete
- M&A can destroy value if assets are overpriced or fail
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled commercial and distribution operations support launch execution and payer/channel access; U.S. product distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers.
Erosion risks
- Wholesaler/PBM consolidation increases bargaining power
- Regulatory actions affecting distribution and rebates (e.g., 340B disputes)
Leading indicators
- Formulary access and rebate levels (gross-to-net)
- Concentration of trade receivables among wholesalers
Counterarguments
- Most large pharma companies have comparable commercial infrastructure
- Wholesaler concentration is also a risk (not purely an advantage)
Neuroscience
Branded neuroscience therapeutics (e.g., migraine and neurodegeneration including Alzheimer's disease)
Revenue share from FY2024 Form 10-K Note 2 'Disaggregation of Revenue': total neuroscience = 779.9 (U.S.) + 693.5 (outside U.S.) ~ 1,473.4; total revenue = 45,042.7; source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/532457/20250226/FO10K_598879.PDF.
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Patents and biologics data protection provide exclusivity for neuroscience brands (e.g., Emgality; Kisunla), supporting pricing and funding further development.
Erosion risks
- Safety/efficacy scrutiny and label restrictions (especially Alzheimer's)
- Competing disease-modifying therapies and diagnostics
- Reimbursement/payer restrictions limiting uptake
Leading indicators
- Regulatory decisions, label updates, and safety monitoring outcomes
- Coverage criteria and real-world utilization
- Next-gen pipeline progress (follow-on molecules, delivery)
Counterarguments
- Neuroscience outcomes are uncertain; clinical differentiation can be narrow
- High cost of care prompts payer and government pushback
Learning Curve Yield
Supply
Learning Curve Yield
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Neuroscience R&D requires large datasets, trial execution skill, and regulatory experience; Lilly highlights neuroscience as a core research focus.
Erosion risks
- Trial failures reduce learning value and investor confidence
- Competitors/academia advance biomarkers and trial designs faster
- Manufacturing or distribution complexity for biologics
Leading indicators
- Progress in biomarker-driven enrollment and endpoints
- Phase 3 readouts and regulatory submissions in neuroscience
- Physician adoption and guideline updates
Counterarguments
- Learning is shared via publications and can diffuse quickly
- Biotech innovation may outpace incumbents in novel modalities
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled commercial and distribution operations support launch execution and payer/channel access; U.S. product distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers.
Erosion risks
- Wholesaler/PBM consolidation increases bargaining power
- Regulatory actions affecting distribution and rebates (e.g., 340B disputes)
Leading indicators
- Formulary access and rebate levels (gross-to-net)
- Concentration of trade receivables among wholesalers
Counterarguments
- Most large pharma companies have comparable commercial infrastructure
- Wholesaler concentration is also a risk (not purely an advantage)
Other
Other branded pharmaceuticals and collaboration/other revenue (legacy products, royalties, and smaller franchises)
Revenue share from FY2024 Form 10-K Note 2 'Disaggregation of Revenue': total other = 251.4 (U.S.) + 651.6 (outside U.S.) ~ 903.0; total revenue = 45,042.7; source: https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/532457/20250226/FO10K_598879.PDF.
IP Choke Point
Legal
IP Choke Point
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Across smaller/legacy products, market exclusivity still depends on patents, data protection, and brand/trademark protections (varying by product).
Erosion risks
- Loss of exclusivity and rapid price erosion
- Generic/biosimilar substitution and therapeutic switching
- Policy-driven price cuts and reference pricing
Leading indicators
- LOE schedules for smaller products
- Generic/biosimilar approvals and launches
- Net price trend in mature franchises
Counterarguments
- Mature products often face commoditization regardless of IP strategy
- Alternatives and generics can capture share quickly post-LOE
Compliance Advantage
Legal
Compliance Advantage
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Navigating global clinical, manufacturing (cGMP), and regulatory requirements creates barriers to entry; established quality/regulatory systems reduce execution risk versus smaller entrants.
Erosion risks
- Regulatory compliance failures or quality issues (recalls, import bans)
- Tighter global scrutiny of manufacturing and safety
- Supply chain disruptions and single-source inputs
Leading indicators
- Regulatory inspection outcomes and warning letters
- Product recall/shortage frequency
- Manufacturing deviation rates and remediation costs
Counterarguments
- Compliance is required for all players; advantage may be limited
- Contract manufacturers and consultants can narrow gaps for new entrants
Operational Excellence
Supply
Operational Excellence
Strength
Durability
Confidence
Evidence
Scaled commercial and distribution operations support launch execution and payer/channel access; U.S. product distribution is concentrated in major wholesalers.
Erosion risks
- Wholesaler/PBM consolidation increases bargaining power
- Regulatory actions affecting distribution and rebates (e.g., 340B disputes)
Leading indicators
- Formulary access and rebate levels (gross-to-net)
- Concentration of trade receivables among wholesalers
Counterarguments
- Most large pharma companies have comparable commercial infrastructure
- Wholesaler concentration is also a risk (not purely an advantage)
Evidence
Mounjaro/Zepbound compound patent U.S. 2036; major European countries 2037; Japan 2040.
Directly supports patent protection/exclusivity for the core cardiometabolic franchise.
We depend on patents or other forms of intellectual property protection for most of our revenue, cash flows, and earnings.
Confirms IP is a core value driver across the portfolio (relevant to cardiometabolic).
We continue to expand manufacturing capacity... additional capacity is expected to be operational over the next several years.
Shows capacity expansion is a strategic focus and a potential advantage when supply is tight.
We invest heavily in research and development... employed approximately 11,000 people in pharmaceutical research and development activities.
Scale and specialization underpin a learning-curve advantage in discovery and clinical development.
Our internal pharmaceutical research focuses... metabolism (including diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular)...
Connects R&D focus directly to the cardiometabolic segment.
Showing 5 of 18 sources.
Risks & Indicators
Erosion risks
- Patent litigation or invalidation
- Loss of exclusivity / generic or follow-on competition
- Government price setting (e.g., U.S. IRA) accelerating revenue erosion
- Competitors (and CMOs) add capacity, reducing scarcity advantage
- Manufacturing setbacks (quality issues, device constraints)
- Regulatory or legal action against marketing/access practices
Leading indicators
- Key patent challenges/settlements (USPTO, courts)
- Regulatory exclusivity timelines and label expansions
- Gross-to-net and realized price trend in major markets
- Reported supply availability/backorder signals by dose/presentation
- Capex and site ramp milestones for new capacity
- Time-to-launch and volume in new geographies
Curation & Accuracy
This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).
Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.