vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Gilead Sciences (GILD) and Vertex Pharmaceuticals (VRTX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Gilead Sciences is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($7.9B vs $3.2B, roughly 2.5× Vertex Pharmaceuticals). Vertex Pharmaceuticals runs the higher net margin — 27.5% vs 37.3%, a 9.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Vertex Pharmaceuticals posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (9.5% vs 4.7%). Gilead Sciences produced more free cash flow last quarter ($3.1B vs $348.6M). Over the past eight quarters, Vertex Pharmaceuticals's revenue compounded faster (8.9% CAGR vs 8.9%).
Gilead Sciences, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir. Gilead is a member of the Nasdaq-100 and the S&P 100.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is an American biopharmaceutical company based in Boston, Massachusetts. It was one of the first biotech firms to use an explicit strategy of rational drug design rather than combinatorial chemistry. It maintains headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, and three research facilities, in San Diego, California, and Milton Park, Oxfordshire, England.
GILD vs VRTX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $7.9B | $3.2B |
| Net Profit | $2.2B | $1.2B |
| Gross Margin | 79.5% | 85.4% |
| Operating Margin | 25.0% | 37.8% |
| Net Margin | 27.5% | 37.3% |
| Revenue YoY | 4.7% | 9.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | 22.4% | 30.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.75 | $4.64 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $7.9B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $7.8B | $3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $3.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.7B | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.6B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $7.5B | $2.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $7.0B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $6.7B | $2.7B |
| Q4 25 | $2.2B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.1B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.0B | $1.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $646.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.8B | $913.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.6B | $-3.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $-4.2B | $1.1B |
| Q4 25 | 79.5% | 85.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 79.8% | 86.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 78.8% | 86.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 76.9% | 86.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 79.1% | 85.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | 79.1% | 85.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 77.8% | 85.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | 76.8% | 87.3% |
| Q4 25 | 25.0% | 37.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.8% | 38.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.9% | 38.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 33.6% | 22.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 32.4% | 35.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.8% | 40.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 38.0% | -132.9% | ||
| Q1 24 | -64.6% | 42.4% |
| Q4 25 | 27.5% | 37.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 39.3% | 35.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 27.7% | 34.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.7% | 23.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 23.6% | 31.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.6% | 37.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 23.2% | -135.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | -62.4% | 40.9% |
| Q4 25 | $1.75 | $4.64 | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.43 | $4.20 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.56 | $3.99 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.04 | $2.49 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.43 | $3.62 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.00 | $4.01 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.29 | $-13.92 | ||
| Q1 24 | $-3.34 | $4.21 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $68.0M | $6.6B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $24.9B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $22.7B | $18.7B |
| Total Assets | $59.0B | $25.6B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 1.10× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $68.0M | $6.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $19.0M | $6.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $69.0M | $6.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $6.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $6.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $6.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $5.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $10.2B |
| Q4 25 | $24.9B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $24.9B | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $24.9B | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.0B | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.7B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $23.2B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $23.3B | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.2B | — |
| Q4 25 | $22.7B | $18.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $21.5B | $17.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $19.7B | $17.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $19.2B | $16.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $19.3B | $16.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $18.5B | $15.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $18.3B | $14.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $17.5B | $18.5B |
| Q4 25 | $59.0B | $25.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $58.5B | $24.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $55.7B | $24.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $56.4B | $22.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $59.0B | $22.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $54.5B | $22.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $53.6B | $20.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $56.3B | $23.9B |
| Q4 25 | 1.10× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.16× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.27× | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.30× | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.38× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.26× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.28× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.44× | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $3.3B | $498.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $3.1B | $348.6M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 39.4% | 10.9% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.6% | 4.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.52× | 0.42× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $9.5B | $3.2B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $3.3B | $498.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $827.0M | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.8B | $818.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.0B | $584.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $-3.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.2B | $1.3B |
| Q4 25 | $3.1B | $348.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $720.0M | $927.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.7B | $778.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.8B | $492.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.2B | $-3.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | 39.4% | 10.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 51.0% | 37.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.2% | 31.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 24.8% | 28.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 37.4% | 16.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 55.2% | 47.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 17.2% | -144.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 31.6% | 46.0% |
| Q4 25 | 2.6% | 4.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.9% | 3.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.5% | 4.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.6% | 1.5% | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.9% | 3.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.9% | 2.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.9% | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.6% | 2.5% |
| Q4 25 | 1.52× | 0.42× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.35× | 1.15× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.42× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.34× | 1.27× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.67× | 0.64× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.44× | 1.31× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.82× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.19× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
GILD
| Other | $3.4B | 43% |
| HIV Products Biktarvy | $3.3B | 41% |
| HIV Products Odefsey | $239.0M | 3% |
| Liver Disease Products Other Liver Disease | $170.0M | 2% |
| HIV Products Other HIV | $155.0M | 2% |
| Other Products Yescarta | $150.0M | 2% |
| Liver Disease Products Vemlidy | $149.0M | 2% |
| Liver Disease Products Sofosbuvir Velpatasvir | $140.0M | 2% |
| HIV Products Symtuza Revenue Share | $98.0M | 1% |
| Veklury | $80.0M | 1% |
| Cell Therapy Products Tecartus | $32.0M | 0% |
| Royalty Contract And Other | $22.0M | 0% |
VRTX
| TRIKAFTAKAFTRIO | $2.6B | 81% |
| ALYFTREK | $380.1M | 12% |
| Manufactured Product Other | $237.4M | 7% |
