Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Abbott Laboratories
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
Lower valuation, weak fundamentals
Get notified when we ship meaningful updates. No spam, no daily noise.
2 of 5 met · composite in line with peers
Business quality, valuation against the sector, and position in the 52-week range — whether they line up or not.
Stable quality
Profitability
3/4
Debt & liquidity
2/3
Efficiency
1/2
Debt/EBITDA of 1.0× sits -66% below the sector median 3.1×, which is the clearest structural advantage the balance sheet carries — the current ratio of 1.58 also runs above the sector median 1.40. Against that, ROE of 13.1% trails the sector median 26.6% by -51%, and EPS growth of -51.3% lags the median 7.3% by -801%, a gap that pulls the composite to 52/100 against the sector. The F-Score of 6/9 reflects this split: the balance sheet scores well, but efficiency is weak. Consensus models a recovery in earnings, yet the realized growth per SEC filings reads as weak, and the beat rate over eight quarters has been thin — the market's optimism here runs ahead of the track record. Valuation sits near the sector median, so the discount is modest rather than a clear margin of safety.
| Ticker | Name | F-Score | ROE | Revenue YoY | Op. margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABBV | AbbVie | 8/9 | 15 367% |
Quarter-by-quarter classification · a retrospective read by the current logic · not a price forecast
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. The method did not see these quarters in real time; this is the current logic applied to past reports.
The market prices in earnings growth; analyst sentiment is strengthening; has not always beaten consensus.
Price against next year's expected earnings. The forward P/E already carries analyst optimism — read it alongside the “Versus consensus” line.
A forward P/E below the current one means the market expects earnings to grow; above it, to fall. The historical growth is realized figures from SEC filings, not a forecast.
The three-month change in the share of positive analyst ratings. This is sentiment, not an earnings-estimate revision, and not a call to act.
When Abbott reports on October 13, 2026, track whether EPS growth recovers from its current 801% shortfall versus the sector median. Also check if FCF growth — now 309% above the median — holds, or whether it was a one-period anomaly.
Focus on the segment revenue breakdown and any disclosures tied to the ROE of 26.6%, which sits 51% below the sector median. Management's discussion should clarify whether capital allocation or margin pressure is the primary drag.
Pick two or three companies from the same-sector table in section 06 and line up one metric — Debt/EBITDA, current ratio, or FCF growth. Abbott's Debt/EBITDA of 3.06× and current ratio of 1.40 give you a concrete baseline for that comparison.
Steps you can check yourself, based on the figures in this brief.
Piotroski F-Score: nine binary tests of financial strength from the annual report. A ✓ marks a test passed, a dot (·) a test failed.
Over 4 years: -10%-35%+26%+16%
Over 4 years: 1.511.751.551.04
Over 4 years: +1%-8%+5%+6%
The context on the right shows how each figure compares with the sector median. The trend below tracks the change over recent fiscal years.
Beat consensus in 4 of 8 recent quarters — a mixed record.
Last quarter's EPS against consensus, plus the estimated date of the next report.
| +9% |
| 25% |
| ABT | Abbott Laboratories | 6/9 | 13% | +6% | 18% |
| AMGN | Amgen | 7/9 | 106% | +10% | 25% |
| BMY | Bristol-Myers Squibb | 8/9 | 41% | -0% | — |
| CVS | CVS Health | 6/9 | 2% | +8% | 1% |
| DHR | Danaher | 5/9 | 7% | +3% | 19% |
| GILD | Gilead Sciences | 8/9 | 40% | +2% | 34% |
| ISRG | Intuitive Surgical | 6/9 | 17% | +21% | 29% |
| JNJ | Johnson & Johnson | 4/9 | 35% | +6% | — |
| LLY | Eli Lilly | 7/9 | 101% | +45% | — |
| MRK | Merck | 4/9 | 37% | +1% | — |
| PFE | Pfizer | 5/9 | 9% | -2% | — |
| TMO | Thermo Fisher | 5/9 | 13% | +4% | 17% |
| UNH | UnitedHealth | 7/9 | 18% | +12% | 4% |
A sample of 14 companies in the sector including the target, alphabetical, unranked. Data from the latest SEC annual reports.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
A simplified retrospective read: no analyst forecast (not available historically); the source is the annual report as of the date, so neighbouring quarters can rest on the same data. Quarters with the same classification in a row are merged into one row — each row is one change in the read, not a separate quarter. One ticker is an illustration of the classification logic, not statistics. How we calculate →
The last few quarters are recent context, not a fixed rate. Consensus for near quarters is set low, so companies clear it routinely; over long horizons the forecasts run the other way, too high.
A description of what the market and analysts expect. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. Analyst forecasts run systematically optimistic over long horizons — read them with that discount.