See Bull Run's current company pages for Lupin and Aurobindo Pharma. Investors can also compare Lupin with Bull Run's Dr Reddy's vs Lupin and Zydus Lifesciences vs Lupin analyses.

Q1 FY27 scorecard: Aurobindo had more revenue, Lupin had more profit

Aurobindo is the larger company by Q1 revenue

Aurobindo Pharma generated approximately ₹9,150 crore of consolidated revenue from operations.

Lupin generated ₹8,217 crore of product sales and ₹8,277 crore of total revenue from operations including other operating income.

Using the cleaner product-sales measure, Aurobindo's topline was roughly 11% larger.

That scale comes from a highly diversified global manufacturing platform.

Aurobindo sold about ₹8,101 crore of formulations

Formulations represented the overwhelming majority of group revenue.

The business spans:

• United States oral solids;
• injectables;
• ophthalmics;
• Europe;
• growth markets;
• ARV medicines;
• specialty products;
• biosimilars.

API revenue contributed another approximately ₹1,049 crore.

Lupin is smaller but currently much more profitable

Lupin generated approximately ₹2,580 crore of EBITDA.

Aurobindo reported operating EBITDA of approximately ₹1,924 crore.

That means Lupin produced around ₹656 crore more core quarterly operating profit while selling less revenue.

The difference is primarily product mix.

Every ₹100 of revenue currently creates very different profit

Lupin's reported EBITDA margin was 31.4%.

Aurobindo's operating EBITDA margin was approximately 21.0%.

In simple terms:

• Lupin retained about ₹31 of EBITDA per ₹100 of sales;
• Aurobindo retained around ₹21 of operating EBITDA.

That ten-percentage-point gap is huge in pharmaceutical manufacturing.

But the EBITDA definitions are not identical

Even with that caveat, Lupin's profitability advantage is too large to dismiss as definition alone.

Its gross margin reached 74.6%.

Aurobindo's gross margin was approximately 60.4%.

The underlying mix difference is real.

The United States is the most important battleground

Aurobindo's US business was therefore roughly 10% larger.

Yet the growth rates were very different.

Aurobindo US revenue grew approximately 8.1%.

Lupin US revenue grew approximately 42.9%.

Lupin is benefiting from a richer US product cycle

Lupin has spent years moving beyond conventional oral-solid generics toward products with greater technical barriers.

Its strategy includes:

• inhalation products;
• complex injectables;
• long-acting injectables;
• limited-competition oral products;
• biosimilars;
• 505(b)(2) opportunities;
• selected specialty medicines.

These products can have fewer competitors and significantly better pricing.

Lupin's US prescription scale is already very large

Lupin marketed 149 generic products in the US at the end of Q1.

According to company-cited IQVIA data, it remained the third-largest pharmaceutical player in the US generic market by prescriptions.

It was the market leader in 56 marketed generics and among the top three in 112 products.

This gives new launches an established commercial platform.

Its first-to-file pipeline remains valuable

Lupin reported:

• 429 cumulative ANDA filings;
• 350 approvals;
• 50 first-to-file filings;
• 21 exclusive first-to-file opportunities.

It received six ANDA approvals and launched three products in Q1.

This pipeline is essential because limited-competition products eventually normalize.

Aurobindo's US platform is broader in sheer filing scale

Aurobindo has one of the industry's largest generic portfolios.

Its cumulative US regulatory portfolio includes hundreds of approvals, with a particularly deep pipeline across conventional formulations and specialty products.

Q1 included ten final approvals and ten launches.

This breadth reduces dependence on any single approval.

Aurobindo's base US business also improved

Management highlighted underlying sequential growth excluding the contribution from generic Revlimid.

That is important because high-value limited-competition products can distort reported performance.

Volume growth and new launches in the base portfolio provide a more durable earnings foundation.

Aurobindo's real complex-product advantage may be injectables

The Eugia platform gives Aurobindo significant exposure to sterile injectables and ophthalmic products.

Injectables have greater manufacturing barriers than ordinary tablets because they require:

• sterile manufacturing;
• tight contamination control;
• specialized filling lines;
• greater regulatory scrutiny;
• complex container systems.

This can create attractive economics when regulatory execution is strong.

Injectables also carry greater manufacturing risk

The same complexity that limits competitors makes regulatory compliance more demanding.

A sterile manufacturing issue can interrupt production or delay approvals across multiple products.

Investors therefore need to track facility-level FDA compliance, not only ANDA counts.

Lupin's respiratory moat operates through a different complexity barrier

Respiratory generics can require:

• device equivalence;
• formulation precision;
• aerodynamic particle control;
• patient usability testing;
• specialized manufacturing.

Lupin has spent years building these capabilities.

This allows it to compete in categories where ordinary generic manufacturers may struggle.

Aurobindo's Europe business is a major differentiator

Aurobindo generated approximately ₹2,937 crore of Q1 Europe revenue.

Revenue increased around 25.6%.

Europe is therefore a much larger economic engine for Aurobindo than for many Indian generic peers.

The region provides geographic diversification away from the US.

Lupin's other developed markets are growing faster

Lupin generated approximately ₹1,149 crore from Other Developed Markets.

Revenue increased 48.3%.

The base is smaller than Aurobindo's European operation, but growth is substantially faster.

This reinforces the broader Q1 pattern:

Aurobindo has greater absolute scale; Lupin has greater current growth and profit density.

Aurobindo's Growth Markets also accelerated

Growth Markets generated approximately ₹1,063 crore, increasing around 37.7%.

This segment includes a relatively small domestic India contribution alongside other international markets.

Aurobindo therefore remains primarily an export-oriented pharmaceutical company.

Lupin has a much larger India franchise

Lupin generated approximately ₹2,380 crore of India sales.

India accounted for 29% of global sales and grew 13.9%.

India formulations grew around 15.1%.

Aurobindo's domestic India business is much smaller relative to its global portfolio.

This gives Lupin a different earnings stabilizer

Indian branded formulations behave differently from US generics.

They typically have:

• less abrupt generic price erosion;
• physician-brand relationships;
• recurring chronic prescriptions;
• more predictable product lifecycles.

Lupin can therefore offset part of US volatility with a sizeable Indian business.

Aurobindo's next strategic layer is biosimilars

Biosimilars require much more scientific and manufacturing complexity than ordinary small-molecule generics.

That creates both higher barriers and higher capital requirements.

CuraTeQ is moving from development toward commercialisation

Aurobindo has progressed multiple biosimilars through European and UK regulatory pathways.

Several approved products are already being commercially supplied.

The company is also expanding mammalian cell-culture capacity.

This means biosimilars can become a meaningful future revenue layer rather than remaining a perpetual R&D project.

Lupin is building biosimilars too

Lupin has its own biosimilar pipeline across oncology, ophthalmology and other biologic therapies.

The company has received approvals for multiple products in different markets and continues investing in regulated-market expansion.

Biosimilars therefore are not a unique Aurobindo advantage.

The scale of Aurobindo's planned biologics manufacturing infrastructure is the more distinctive element.

Aurobindo is also becoming a biologics contract manufacturer

TheraNym represents a major strategic expansion beyond selling Aurobindo-owned medicines.

The platform is designed to manufacture biologics for global pharmaceutical customers.

That moves part of Aurobindo toward a CDMO-style business model.

Its first new biologics manufacturing unit was inaugurated in June 2026

The facility is progressing through qualification activities before planned commercial production.

A second large greenfield unit is tied to future customer programmes and is expected to involve substantial mammalian cell-culture capacity.

This represents a long-duration investment rather than an immediate Q1 earnings contributor.

Aurobindo's biologics capex creates real optionality—and real risk

Large biologics plants are expensive.

Returns depend on:

• customer qualification;
• regulatory approval;
• commercial utilisation;
• long-duration contracts;
• manufacturing quality.

An underutilised biologics plant can destroy capital even if the technology is excellent.

Lupin's current strategy requires less giant infrastructure

Lupin remains capital-intensive, but its current earnings surge is largely coming from product mix rather than a massive newly built biologics contract-manufacturing network.

Q1 capex was approximately ₹279 crore.

That allows more current earnings to flow toward cash generation.

R&D intensity is significant at Lupin

Lupin spent approximately ₹608 crore in Q1 R&D.

That represented 7.4% of sales.

The company is therefore not generating its high margin simply by reducing future-product investment.

It continues funding complex generics, biosimilars and specialty opportunities.

Aurobindo's development platform is broader across modalities

Aurobindo's investment spans:

• oral generics;
• injectables;
• ophthalmics;
• biosimilars;
• biologics CMO;
• APIs;
• specialty products.

This breadth creates many shots on goal.

It also creates more facilities and regulatory systems to manage.

Both companies reported net-cash positions

Aurobindo reported gross borrowings of approximately ₹8,393 crore, offset by cash and investments of about ₹8,790 crore.

So it is important not to describe Aurobindo as debt-free.

It has gross debt, but the company's liquidity and investments exceed that debt on the disclosed measure.

Aurobindo also generated positive free cash flow

Quarterly free cash flow was approximately US$98 million.

That is useful because the company is simultaneously funding acquisitions and long-duration biologics investments.

Strong operating cash conversion reduces the need for excessive external financing.

Lupin's historical free-cash-flow record is larger

The current return gap is striking.

Lupin's standardized ROCE is more than twice Aurobindo's.

ROE is almost three times higher.

This is the clearest explanation for the difference in price-to-book valuation.

Aurobindo is much cheaper on book value

Aurobindo trades around 2.38 times book value.

Lupin trades around 5.08 times.

At first glance, Aurobindo therefore appears cheaper.

But book value only becomes valuable when the assets earn adequate returns.

Lupin's current ROE of roughly 27% justifies paying more per rupee of equity than Aurobindo's approximately 10% ROE.

On earnings, Lupin is actually cheaper

Aurobindo's market capitalisation is only about 79% of Lupin's.

Yet Aurobindo generates more consolidated revenue.

That makes Aurobindo appear inexpensive on sales and book value.

Lupin's much higher margins explain why the earnings valuation reverses the conclusion.

This is a profit-density versus platform-breadth comparison

Lupin currently offers:

• higher margins;
• faster growth;
• higher ROCE;
• lower P/E;
• larger India exposure;
• strong differentiated-US economics.

Aurobindo offers:

• greater total revenue;
• slightly larger US scale;
• much larger Europe scale;
• deep injectables exposure;
• large biosimilar pipeline;
• biologics contract-manufacturing optionality;
• lower price-to-book.

Aurobindo's 61% one-year return raises expectations

Bull Run's September snapshot shows Aurobindo up approximately 61.2% over one year.

Lupin is up approximately 14.0%.

Aurobindo has therefore already experienced a major rerating.

The market is beginning to pay for improving earnings, injectables, biosimilars and biologics optionality.

Lupin has recently corrected despite strong earnings

Lupin is down approximately 9.9% over one month and 4.2% over three months in Bull Run's latest snapshot.

Its RSI is near 29.

Technical weakness does not determine long-term intrinsic value.

But it highlights a contrast: Lupin's earnings improved faster than its recent share price.

What must Lupin prove?

• US complex-product growth must survive normalization of individual exclusivities.
• 31%-plus Q1 EBITDA margin needs reasonable durability.
• First-to-file opportunities must be replaced continuously.
• India should maintain double-digit growth.
• Biosimilar investments need profitable commercialization.
• Net cash should be allocated without lowering ROCE.
• Regulatory compliance across key facilities must remain strong.

What must Aurobindo prove?

• US base-business growth should continue beyond individual high-value products.
• Injectables must grow without regulatory disruption.
• European growth needs sustained profitability.
• CuraTeQ biosimilars must convert approvals into commercial revenue.
• Biologics CMO facilities need high utilisation.
• Large capital expenditure must raise ROCE.
• Shareholder returns must justify the recent 60%-plus rerating.

What could make Aurobindo outperform Lupin?

A successful move from generic breadth into higher-return complex platforms.

If Eugia injectables, CuraTeQ biosimilars and TheraNym biologics manufacturing all scale simultaneously, Aurobindo can raise margins and ROCE without needing extraordinary consolidated revenue growth.

Its low price-to-book multiple gives substantial rerating potential if asset returns improve.

What could make Lupin outperform Aurobindo?

Simply sustaining today's differentiated-product economics.

Lupin already has a 31% EBITDA margin, 32%-plus standardized quarterly sales growth, net cash and 31.8% ROCE.

It does not need a massive new biologics facility to justify its current earnings multiple.

Which has the larger US business?

Aurobindo Pharma, slightly.

Q1 US revenue was approximately ₹3,770 crore versus Lupin at ₹3,435 crore.

Which has stronger US growth?

Lupin by a wide margin.

Lupin's US sales grew 42.9% versus Aurobindo's approximately 8.1%.

Which has stronger current margins?

Lupin.

Its reported EBITDA margin was 31.4% versus Aurobindo operating EBITDA margin around 21.0%, while acknowledging differing definitions.

Which has the broader complex-products platform?

Aurobindo on breadth.

Its platform spans sterile injectables, ophthalmics, biosimilars, biologics contract manufacturing, APIs and conventional formulations.

Lupin currently earns more from its complex portfolio, but Aurobindo has more manufacturing verticals.

Which has stronger capital efficiency?

Lupin by a wide margin.

Bull Run ROCE is approximately 31.8% versus Aurobindo at 14.5%.

Which stock is cheaper?

The answer depends on the metric.

Lupin is cheaper on trailing P/E at approximately 20.6x versus 24.3x.

Aurobindo is much cheaper on price-to-book at approximately 2.38x versus Lupin at 5.08x.

Given Lupin's much higher current ROE, the lower Aurobindo book multiple is economically understandable.

Which is better: Lupin or Aurobindo Pharma?

Lupin currently has the stronger valuation-adjusted operating profile. It generates less revenue than Aurobindo but significantly more EBITDA and PAT, earns more than twice the ROCE, carries net cash and trades at a lower trailing P/E.

Aurobindo currently has the broader long-duration platform. It has greater US and European scale, major injectable capabilities, a large biosimilar pipeline and a biologics contract-manufacturing programme that can potentially change the company's return profile.

The investment question is therefore whether Aurobindo can turn asset breadth into profit density.

Today, Lupin already has that profit density.

At September 2026 valuations, Lupin offers the stronger current combination of margins, earnings, ROCE and P/E. Aurobindo becomes more compelling if injectables, biosimilars and biologics manufacturing lift consolidated returns, because its lower book valuation leaves meaningful room for rerating if the new assets earn premium returns.

Frequently asked questions