JNJ Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Gilead Sciences has a net margin of 15.24% compared to Johnson & Johnson's net margin of 23.56%. Johnson & Johnson's return on equity of 19.98% beat Gilead Sciences's return on equity of 2.5%.

Johnson & Johnson has a consensus price target of $169.07, signalling upside risk potential of 10.32%. On the other hand Gilead Sciences has an analysts' consensus of $111.71 which suggests that it could grow by 0.39%. Given that Johnson & Johnson has higher upside potential than Gilead Sciences, analysts believe Johnson & Johnson is more attractive than Gilead Sciences.

Johnson & Johnson has a beta of 0.490, which suggesting that the stock is 50.995% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Gilead Sciences has a beta of 0.322, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 67.831%.

Johnson & Johnson has a quarterly dividend of $1.24 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.24%. Gilead Sciences offers a yield of 2.79% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.79 per share. Johnson & Johnson pays 84.05% of its earnings as a dividend. Gilead Sciences pays out 816.25% of its earnings as a dividend. Johnson & Johnson's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but Gilead Sciences's is not.

Johnson & Johnson quarterly revenues are $22.5B, which are larger than Gilead Sciences quarterly revenues of $7.6B. Johnson & Johnson's net income of $3.4B is higher than Gilead Sciences's net income of $1.8B. Notably, Johnson & Johnson's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.47x while Gilead Sciences's PE ratio is 300.76x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Johnson & Johnson is 4.19x versus 4.87x for Gilead Sciences. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Intuitive Surgical has a net margin of 15.24% compared to Johnson & Johnson's net margin of 28.41%. Johnson & Johnson's return on equity of 19.98% beat Intuitive Surgical's return on equity of 15.6%.

Johnson & Johnson has a consensus price target of $169.07, signalling upside risk potential of 10.32%. On the other hand Intuitive Surgical has an analysts' consensus of $624.78 which suggests that it could grow by 25.87%. Given that Intuitive Surgical has higher upside potential than Johnson & Johnson, analysts believe Intuitive Surgical is more attractive than Johnson & Johnson.

Johnson & Johnson has a beta of 0.490, which suggesting that the stock is 50.995% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Intuitive Surgical has a beta of 1.555, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 55.506%.

Johnson & Johnson has a quarterly dividend of $1.24 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.24%. Intuitive Surgical offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Johnson & Johnson pays 84.05% of its earnings as a dividend. Intuitive Surgical pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Johnson & Johnson's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Johnson & Johnson quarterly revenues are $22.5B, which are larger than Intuitive Surgical quarterly revenues of $2.4B. Johnson & Johnson's net income of $3.4B is higher than Intuitive Surgical's net income of $685.7M. Notably, Johnson & Johnson's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.47x while Intuitive Surgical's PE ratio is 77.44x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Johnson & Johnson is 4.19x versus 21.51x for Intuitive Surgical. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Intra-Cellular Therapies has a net margin of 15.24% compared to Johnson & Johnson's net margin of -8.48%. Johnson & Johnson's return on equity of 19.98% beat Intra-Cellular Therapies's return on equity of -8.07%.

Johnson & Johnson has a consensus price target of $169.07, signalling upside risk potential of 10.32%. On the other hand Intra-Cellular Therapies has an analysts' consensus of $132.00 which suggests that it could grow by 0.1%. Given that Johnson & Johnson has higher upside potential than Intra-Cellular Therapies, analysts believe Johnson & Johnson is more attractive than Intra-Cellular Therapies.

Johnson & Johnson has a beta of 0.490, which suggesting that the stock is 50.995% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Intra-Cellular Therapies has a beta of 0.462, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 53.815%.

Johnson & Johnson has a quarterly dividend of $1.24 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.24%. Intra-Cellular Therapies offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Johnson & Johnson pays 84.05% of its earnings as a dividend. Intra-Cellular Therapies pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Johnson & Johnson's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Johnson & Johnson quarterly revenues are $22.5B, which are larger than Intra-Cellular Therapies quarterly revenues of $199.2M. Johnson & Johnson's net income of $3.4B is higher than Intra-Cellular Therapies's net income of -$16.9M. Notably, Johnson & Johnson's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.47x while Intra-Cellular Therapies's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Johnson & Johnson is 4.19x versus 19.98x for Intra-Cellular Therapies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Moderna has a net margin of 15.24% compared to Johnson & Johnson's net margin of -117.16%. Johnson & Johnson's return on equity of 19.98% beat Moderna's return on equity of -29.09%.

Johnson & Johnson has a consensus price target of $169.07, signalling upside risk potential of 10.32%. On the other hand Moderna has an analysts' consensus of $53.44 which suggests that it could grow by 96.76%. Given that Moderna has higher upside potential than Johnson & Johnson, analysts believe Moderna is more attractive than Johnson & Johnson.

Johnson & Johnson has a beta of 0.490, which suggesting that the stock is 50.995% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Moderna has a beta of 2.231, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 123.128%.

Johnson & Johnson has a quarterly dividend of $1.24 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.24%. Moderna offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Johnson & Johnson pays 84.05% of its earnings as a dividend. Moderna pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Johnson & Johnson's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Johnson & Johnson quarterly revenues are $22.5B, which are larger than Moderna quarterly revenues of $956M. Johnson & Johnson's net income of $3.4B is higher than Moderna's net income of -$1.1B. Notably, Johnson & Johnson's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.47x while Moderna's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Johnson & Johnson is 4.19x versus 3.29x for Moderna. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.