VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★

PRICE: 0 CENTS

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Pfizer Inc.

PFE · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$142.1B
SectorHealthcare
CountryUS
Data as of
Moat score
58/ 100

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Spot something outdated?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

Pfizer is a global biopharmaceutical company with Biopharma as its sole reportable segment and smaller services operations (Pfizer CentreOne and Pfizer Ignite). For moat profiling, this dataset follows the company's revenue groupings in Primary Care, Specialty Care, and Oncology (plus CentreOne and Ignite). The company's most important moat mechanism is legal: patents and regulatory exclusivity that delay generic/biosimilar entry and support branded economics until loss of exclusivity. Scale in clinical development, regulatory execution, and global commercialization supports pipeline funding and worldwide launch execution, but durability is constrained by patent cliffs, payer/formulary pressure on net pricing, and evolving drug-pricing policy.

Primary segment

Primary Care

Market structure

Oligopoly

Market share

HHI:

Coverage

5 segments · 6 tags

Updated 2025-12-29

Segments

Primary Care

Branded primary care medicines and vaccines (incl. cardiovascular, migraine, pneumococcal/RSV/COVID-19)

Revenue

47.4%

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

MRKGSKSNYAZN+5

Specialty Care

Specialty medicines (inflammation & immunology, rare disease, and hospital/anti-infectives and sterile injectables)

Revenue

26.2%

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

ABBVJNJAMGNMRK+3

Oncology

Oncology therapeutics (innovative oncology medicines and oncology biosimilars)

Revenue

24.5%

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

MRKBMYAZNNVS+5

Pfizer CentreOne

Contract development and manufacturing (CDMO) services and specialty active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)

Revenue

1.8%

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

weak

Share

Peers

LONN.SWDHRTMOSRT3.DE+1

Pfizer Ignite

Biotech partnership offering providing strategic guidance and end-to-end R&D services

Revenue

0.1%

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

weak

Share

Peers

IQVCRLMEDP

Moat Claims

Primary Care

Branded primary care medicines and vaccines (incl. cardiovascular, migraine, pneumococcal/RSV/COVID-19)

Revenue share derived from 2024 Form 10-K Note 17C 'Significant Revenues by Product' (Primary Care $30,135M of Total Revenues $63,627M for year ended Dec 31, 2024).

Oligopoly

IP Choke Point

Legal

Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Primary Care economics rely on patent portfolios and (where applicable) regulatory exclusivity that delay generic entry for key brands (e.g., Eliquis, Prevnar, Nurtec, Abrysvo, Comirnaty, Paxlovid).

Erosion risks

  • Loss of exclusivity and generic/biosimilar entry
  • Patent litigation outcomes shortening exclusivity
  • Therapeutic substitution from new branded entrants

Leading indicators

  • Upcoming basic patent expiration years for top products
  • ANDA/biosimilar filings and litigation milestones
  • Net price realization (gross-to-net) trend

Counterarguments

  • Patents do not prevent within-class competition that can erode value before loss of exclusivity
  • Payers can compress net pricing even during exclusivity via rebates and utilization management

Procurement Inertia

Demand

Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence

Formulary positioning and contracting with insurers/PBMs can create stickiness once a product is placed in preferred tiers, but often requires ongoing rebates/discounting.

Erosion risks

  • Payer re-tiering to lower-cost alternatives
  • Higher rebate demands compressing profitability
  • Step-therapy/prior authorization limiting volume

Leading indicators

  • Formulary tier changes at major PBMs
  • Rebate rate / gross-to-net changes
  • Access wins/losses in Medicare and commercial plans

Counterarguments

  • Preferred access is often purchased through price concessions, not a structural advantage
  • If therapeutic alternatives are comparable, switching frictions can be low

Government Contracting Relationships

Legal

Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Vaccines and certain public-health products can benefit from government procurement channels (e.g., U.S. federal programs), but contracts are contestable and may be renegotiated or terminated.

Erosion risks

  • Tender loss or lower awarded volumes
  • Policy/public-health recommendation changes
  • Contract renegotiation or termination

Leading indicators

  • CDC/ACIP recommendation changes
  • Government procurement awards and pricing terms
  • Public-sector share of vaccine volumes

Counterarguments

  • Government procurement is price-sensitive and contestable; not exclusive
  • Demand can shift quickly when products transition to commercial channels

Specialty Care

Specialty medicines (inflammation & immunology, rare disease, and hospital/anti-infectives and sterile injectables)

Revenue share derived from 2024 Form 10-K Note 17C 'Significant Revenues by Product' (Specialty Care $16,652M of Total Revenues $63,627M for year ended Dec 31, 2024).

Oligopoly

IP Choke Point

Legal

Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Specialty Care franchises (e.g., rare disease and immunology biologics/small molecules) depend on patents and regulatory exclusivity to protect pricing and volume from rapid generic/biosimilar entry.

Erosion risks

  • Biosimilar competition and price erosion post-LOE
  • Safety warnings or label restrictions reducing demand
  • Payer step therapy and utilization management

Leading indicators

  • Exclusivity timelines for top Specialty Care brands
  • Biosimilar approvals and launches in key markets
  • Hospital formulary wins/losses

Counterarguments

  • Biologics/biosimilars can erode net pricing even before full LOE via contracting pressure
  • Some hospital/anti-infective categories behave more like commodities with limited differentiation

Capex Knowhow Scale

Supply

Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Large-scale clinical development, regulatory execution, and global manufacturing enable Pfizer to fund and commercialize specialty medicines across multiple therapeutic areas.

Erosion risks

  • R&D productivity shortfalls or late-stage trial failures
  • Capital allocation shifts reducing pipeline investment
  • Competition from equally scaled peers and well-funded biotech

Leading indicators

  • Late-stage pipeline readouts and approval cadence
  • R&D spend as % of revenues
  • Business development (licensing/M&A) pace and ROI

Counterarguments

  • Large-pharma R&D scale is common among peers, limiting differentiation
  • Breakthrough innovation can come from small biotech and still disrupt incumbents

Oncology

Oncology therapeutics (innovative oncology medicines and oncology biosimilars)

Revenue share derived from 2024 Form 10-K Note 17C 'Significant Revenues by Product' (Oncology $15,612M of Total Revenues $63,627M for year ended Dec 31, 2024).

Competitive

Capex Knowhow Scale

Supply

Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Oncology requires sustained, high-cost R&D and regulatory execution; Pfizer emphasizes oncology as a core therapeutic focus and runs end-to-end clinical development programs.

Erosion risks

  • Rival breakthroughs and rapid standard-of-care shifts
  • Clinical trial failures or safety signals
  • Pricing/coverage tightening for oncology regimens

Leading indicators

  • Phase 3 readouts and FDA/EMA approvals
  • New indication expansions for key oncology assets
  • Competitive trial results in overlapping indications

Counterarguments

  • Oncology is one of the most competitive drug markets; scale alone does not secure durable share
  • Regimens can change quickly, reducing the half-life of any single franchise

IP Choke Point

Legal

Strength: 4/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 2 evidence

Approved oncology assets are protected by patents/exclusivity, which support high gross margins until loss of exclusivity; however, patent cliffs and biosimilar competition can compress value over time.

Erosion risks

  • Patent expiry and generic entry
  • New mechanisms of action outcompeting older standards
  • Biosimilar adoption for oncology biologics

Leading indicators

  • Patent litigation and extension outcomes
  • Competitor label expansions vs Pfizer indications
  • Biosimilar penetration rates where relevant

Counterarguments

  • Exclusivity does not stop within-class branded competition that can erode pricing
  • Oncology treatment choice is evidence-driven; weak differentiation leads to rapid switching

Pfizer CentreOne

Contract development and manufacturing (CDMO) services and specialty active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)

Revenue share derived from 2024 Form 10-K Note 17C 'Significant Revenues by Product' (Pfizer CentreOne $1,146M of Total Revenues $63,627M for year ended Dec 31, 2024).

Competitive

Compliance Advantage

Legal

Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 4/5 · 1 evidence

CDMO/API work requires sustained compliance with cGMP and successful regulatory inspections; proven compliance capability can be a differentiator in customer selection.

Erosion risks

  • Inspection findings, warning letters, or consent decrees
  • Quality deviations leading to recalls or supply interruptions
  • Rising compliance costs compressing margins

Leading indicators

  • Regulatory inspection outcomes (FDA/EMA/etc.)
  • Batch failure rates and deviation trends
  • Customer audits and quality scorecards

Counterarguments

  • Many CDMOs can meet cGMP standards; compliance alone may not confer pricing power
  • Customer multi-sourcing reduces supplier leverage

Long Term Contracts

Demand

Strength: 2/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 2 evidence

Manufacturing and supply agreements (including legacy Pfizer partnerships) can provide multi-year revenue visibility and switching friction, though contracts are typically renegotiable and not exclusive.

Erosion risks

  • Contract non-renewal or volume reductions
  • Pricing pressure in rebids
  • Customer insourcing/dual-sourcing

Leading indicators

  • Backlog and utilization rates
  • Renewal/win rates for MSAs
  • Capacity expansion/idle capacity in the CDMO market

Counterarguments

  • Many manufacturing contracts are short- to medium-term and re-tendered
  • Customers can qualify alternate suppliers over time, limiting durability

Operational Excellence

Supply

Strength: 3/5 · Durability: medium · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence

CentreOne positions itself as a CDMO and specialty API supplier; operational reliability and on-time delivery are critical to winning and retaining customers.

Erosion risks

  • Operational disruptions (equipment failures, labor issues)
  • Input shortages and logistics disruption
  • Aggressive competitor pricing eroding service value capture

Leading indicators

  • On-time-in-full delivery metrics
  • Customer complaint and deviation rates
  • Site utilization and throughput

Counterarguments

  • CDMO services can be commoditized in standard processes
  • Operational advantages may be competed away through customer audits and benchmarking

Pfizer Ignite

Biotech partnership offering providing strategic guidance and end-to-end R&D services

Revenue share derived from 2024 Form 10-K Note 17C 'Significant Revenues by Product' (Pfizer Ignite $82M of Total Revenues $63,627M for year ended Dec 31, 2024).

Competitive

Embedded R&D partnership platform

Demand

Strength: 2/5 · Durability: fragile · Confidence: 3/5 · 1 evidence

Combines strategic guidance with end-to-end R&D services for select biotech partners, leveraging Pfizer's therapeutic-area expertise and infrastructure.

Small revenue base; potential advantage comes from bundling Pfizer expertise, infrastructure, and partner-selection, but durability depends on partner outcomes and continued investment.

Erosion risks

  • Difficulty sourcing high-quality partner pipeline
  • Talent retention challenges in R&D services
  • Competing offerings from CROs/VC-backed platforms

Leading indicators

  • Number and quality of partner programs
  • Partner milestone achievements and outcomes
  • Economics of agreements (upfronts, milestones, royalties)

Counterarguments

  • Many biotechs can access CRO capacity and strategic capital elsewhere
  • Platform value is unproven without consistent partner success

Evidence

sec_filing
Pfizer Inc. Form 10-K (FY ended Dec 31, 2024) - Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights

Paraphrase: Pfizer says it has owned/licensed patent rights covering products, uses, formulations, and manufacturing methods.

Supports the claim that patents are a primary barrier to entry for branded medicines and vaccines.

sec_filing
Pfizer Inc. Form 10-K (FY ended Dec 31, 2024) - Significant patent expirations table

Paraphrase: The 10-K lists patent expiration years for major products (e.g., Eliquis is shown with a 2026 U.S. expiration).

Illustrates time-bounded nature of exclusivity for major Primary Care franchises.

sec_filing
Pfizer Inc. Form 10-K (FY ended Dec 31, 2024) - Sales and Marketing (formularies)

Paraphrase: The 10-K explains insurers/PBMs steer utilization via formulary placement, typically tied to discounts/rebates.

Supports the mechanism that payer/PBM contracting can make demand sticky after access is secured.

sec_filing
Pfizer Inc. Form 10-K (FY ended Dec 31, 2024) - Sales and Marketing (vaccines)

Paraphrase: Pfizer notes U.S. vaccine sales are largely through federal government programs (including CDC).

Supports government-procurement channel relevance for vaccine sales.

sec_filing
Pfizer Inc. Form 10-K (FY ended Dec 31, 2024) - Significant customers

Paraphrase: The 10-K shows customer concentration; the U.S. government is listed as a material customer in 2024.

Quantifies government as a meaningful customer in the period.

Showing 5 of 14 sources.

Risks & Indicators

Erosion risks

  • Loss of exclusivity and generic/biosimilar entry
  • Patent litigation outcomes shortening exclusivity
  • Therapeutic substitution from new branded entrants
  • Government price negotiation/price controls
  • Payer re-tiering to lower-cost alternatives
  • Higher rebate demands compressing profitability

Leading indicators

  • Upcoming basic patent expiration years for top products
  • ANDA/biosimilar filings and litigation milestones
  • Net price realization (gross-to-net) trend
  • Share shifts to therapeutic alternatives
  • Formulary tier changes at major PBMs
  • Rebate rate / gross-to-net changes
Created 2025-12-29
Updated 2025-12-29

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.