← All companiesBy market cap
●PositiveTier 1

Gland Pharma LtdNSE:GLAND

Healthcare · ₹46,886 Cr market cap · covered for 1 quarter since Q4 2026

Current view Q4 2026

Injectable-drug maker whose loss-making Europe unit finally turned profitable, powering profit up 47%. Contract manufacturing is the growth engine, plus future weight-loss-drug upside. But that Europe fix arrived a year late.

Latest exchange filings last 5 · 5 after Q4 2026

Exchange filings, with the company's own one-line summary, read off the same page as the figures. Screener publishes only the most recent few, so this is the last 5 — not everything filed since your note, and a quiet-looking list is not proof of a quiet quarter. A filing is marked new when it is dated after the end of the quarter your note covers. Not scored, and not a judgement — a routine repayment notice and a takeover sit in the same list.

AI concall report · Q4 2026

The full earnings-call read behind this view — what management promised, what they delivered, and the earning trigger.

✨ Read the report ↗

Growth Q4 2026

Metric This year vs lastYoY · vs Q4 2025 vs the quarter beforeQoQ, sequential · vs Q3 2026 3-year yearly average3Y CAGR · compounded 5-year yearly average5Y CAGR · compounded
Sales▲ +22.3%+2.8%+21.1%+13.2%
Operating profit▲ +47.4%+17.9%+16.7%+6.0%
EPS▲ +96.6%+40.3%+9.6%+0.5%
PAT▲ +96.3%+40.6%——

Tinted rows drive the Tier. Tier = the weaker of YoY Sales and YoY PAT growth. Here the weaker is Sales at +22.3%, which is ≥ 20% → Tier 1.

QoQ is sequential, not a trend. For most Indian companies the March quarter is seasonally the largest, so a June-quarter fall against it is a calendar effect. Only the YoY column feeds the Tier.

Multibagger potential Average59/100

Growing, but too slowly to re-price. Profit per share grew 10% a year. A big re-pricing usually needs more than 15% a year, so the score is capped no matter how cheap it looks.

Doubling needs a price-tag it has never reached

₹2,896 → ₹5,792 needs the P/E at 71× — it is 46× today, and has ranged 19× to 62× over the last 5 years. The rest would come from earnings growing as they have.

If this keeps up for 3 more years ×0.8 -18% — profit growing 10% a year, and buyers paying 29× for it again

What you pay for its profitlog scale · 5-year range

19×5-year low 29×usual level 46×today 62×5-year high 71×to double 106×to triple

Tripling needs 106× — never traded above 62× in 5 years.

The Multibaggerearnings climbing and buyers already paying more for them⚠ inflection⚠ low growth
Is it cheap right now?P/E 46× is 1.61× its own 5-year average of 29× — far above it; forward PEG 4.44 — expensive for its growth 1/25
Has the market paid for this growth yet?ΔMultiple ×1.11 a year (×1.35 over 3 years) — multiple flat 6/15
Is the growth real, or flattered?EPS fully backed by sales; QoQ holding 30/30
What does it earn on its own money?earns 10% on its own book — thin 2/10
Is the price trend agreeing?above all three EMAs — accumulation 20/20
Price vs its book value 4.6×P/B — ₹629 of book value per share
Price vs next year’s profit 42×forward P/E — what an entry pays now
Price over the last year ×1.21earnings ×1.10, price-tag ×1.11

Re-rated already, on growth that doesn't fully back it.

How this is calculated

This is arithmetic, not a forecast — Return = ΔEPS × ΔMultiple. It says what would have to be true, not how likely it is, and "earnings keep growing at this rate for three more years" is the assumption doing the most work. This is a large-cap at ₹46,886 cr, so the odds of a re-rate are not fighting its own size.

Band capped: growth of 9.6% is below the 15% bar a re-rate needs.

Growth rate used: 9.6% — the weakest of EPS / Sales / Op-profit from 3-year EPS CAGR. Latest quarter reads 60%.

How it compares with its rivals Healthcare · 6 of 159 listed

It earns 15% on its capital, sixth of 6, and it is the third most expensive of the 6 shown.

Company PriceP/ESizeROCE Profitlast qtr Saleslast qtr
Gland Pharma ₹2,950 42.6× ₹48,677 Cr 15.1% +47.1% +19.6%
Sun Pharma.Inds. ₹1,853 35.1× ₹4.45 L Cr 20.5% +6.0% +10.5%
Divi's Lab. ₹9,376 83.5× ₹2.49 L Cr 22.0% +65.5% +27.8%
Torrent Pharma. ₹4,855 82.8× ₹1.85 L Cr 15.2% +5.8% +54.9%
Zydus Lifesci. ₹1,155 23.7× ₹1.15 L Cr 21.1% −35.1% +22.0%
Cipla ₹1,375 31.0× ₹1.11 L Cr 15.5% −39.2% +2.3%

Screener's own peer group, from the request already made for the industry P/E. It serves the industry's largest names by market cap, not companies of a similar size, so treat this as context rather than a like-for-like table; this company is always shown. On a phone the price, size and sales columns are dropped rather than pushed off the edge. Not part of the score.

Business quality to Jun 2026

Are the margins widening? yes — a little wider than 3 years earlier operating margin 24% → 27% over 3 years
Did the profit turn into cash? most of it arrived as cash 91% last year, 96% over three · free cash flow ₹538 cr, positive in 5 of 5 years
Is the growth borrowed? essentially debt-free ₹284 cr — 0.03× its own equity (was 0.03×)
Is it being collected? collection is steady 107 days to collect, up 8 in a year · cash cycle 255 days
Who has been buying? the promoters have held steady promoters 51.8% (−0.1 in a year), 57.9% → 51.8% over 2.8 years · FIIs 8.7% (+1.4) · DIIs 30.4% (−2.4) · shareholders 1,61,627 → 1,08,266
What does it earn on its capital? earns a fair return on its capital ROCE 15.1% · ROE 10.7%

Fetched from the filings, not typed — and deliberately not part of the score. These are the questions the score cannot ask: it reads growth, price and trend, so a company can score well while its profit never becomes cash. Weigh these beside the note, not against the number.

Screener's own checklist not mine, not the score

In its favour

  • Company is almost debt free.
  • Company has been maintaining a healthy dividend payout of 39.1%

Against it

  • Stock is trading at 4.68 times its book value
  • Company has a low return on equity of 9.29% over last 3 years.
  • Promoter holding has decreased over last 3 years: -6.09%

Generated by screener.in from a fixed checklist — not written by me and not an input to the score. It is here as a second machine opinion to weigh against the note; where it disagrees with the view above, the note is the considered one.