NAMS vs NVS: Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

Same yardstick, side by side (as of August 2026). Valuation lined up like this is most meaningful for two names in the same corner of the market, which these are. Figures are approximate; verify before investing.

The metrics above tell you which is the marginally better business. The bigger risk for most people is not picking the slightly worse stock, it is over-concentrating. NAMS and NVS share themes, so owning both, or adding either to what you already hold, can quietly push a large share of your portfolio into one bet.

This is the part a generic comparison page cannot answer, because it depends on what you own. Connect your brokerage and Walnut shows your real, combined NAMS and NVS exposure, flags overlap with your existing positions, and tells you if adding one would tip you past a concentration you are comfortable with, read-only by default, with your login staying at your broker. Walnut is not an investment adviser.

NewAmsterdam Pharma Company N.V. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Naarden, the Netherlands, and listed on Nasdaq under the ticker NAMS. Its lead candidate is obicetrapib, an oral, once-daily, low-dose CETP inhibitor being developed as a non-statin option (alone or as a fixed-dose combination with ezetimibe) to lower LDL cholesterol in patients who are not reaching targets on existing therapy. The company reported positive topline data from pivotal Phase 3 trials including BROADWAY, BROOKLYN and TANDEM, and is running the large PREVAIL cardiovascular outcomes trial; ex-US rights are partnered with the Menarini Group, and an earlier-stage Phase 2a program explores obicetrapib in Alzheimer's disease.

Full NAMS guide

Novartis AG is a Swiss pharmaceutical company, and NVS is its US-listed American Depositary Receipt trading on the NYSE. Over the past several years it deliberately reshaped itself into a pure-play innovative-medicines business: it spun off the Alcon eye-care division in 2019 and separated the Sandoz generics and biosimilars unit in 2023, distributing those shares to Novartis holders. What remains is a focused portfolio of patented prescription drugs concentrated in four therapeutic areas: oncology, immunology, neuroscience, and cardiovascular-renal-metabolic disease. Oncology is its largest contributor, and the company has built a reputation for high core operating margins, reaching roughly 40% in 2025.

Full NVS guide

Both fit overlapping themes, but they are not interchangeable. The useful comparison is which set of drivers and risks you want exposure to.

• NAMS drivers: Obicetrapib approval path; Oral, once-daily convenience versus injectables.
• NVS drivers: Priority growth brands offsetting the cliff; Focused, high-margin innovative-medicines model.

A faster-growing, richer-valued name usually swings harder, so it suits a longer horizon and a higher tolerance for volatility; a steadier, more cash-generative business suits a more conservative or income-minded investor. The honest test is which set of risks you could hold through a drawdown: The company is pre-commercial with negligible revenue, so the valuation depends on obicetrapib being approved and commercially adopted; a regulatory setback or a disappointing PREVAIL outcomes result would remove much of the thesis. For NVS, the dominant risk is the patent cliff: Entresto, Tasigna, and Promacta/Revolade are losing exclusivity, and Entresto alone was the largest seller, so the priority growth brands must scale fast enough to fill the gap, which is not guaranteed.

Growth-minded investors who believe the theme has years to run tend to accept the richer multiple for more upside; value-minded investors lean toward the cheaper forward earnings and steadier profile. Pick NAMS if you believe its drivers more; NVS if you believe its. Many investors hold both, but since they share themes, that is a concentrated bet, not diversification. Decide deliberately and check overlap. For the full detail, see the NAMS and NVS guides.

NAMS. The revenue base is tiny and consists mainly of product supply under the Menarini agreement, so traditional multiples are not meaningful. The stock trades as a clinical-stage bet where the roughly $4.4 billion market cap reflects expectations for obicetrapib rather than current sales. The large cash balance relative to the quarterly burn is the reason the company can fund trials and a potential launch without near-term financing.

NVS. Figures are approximate and qualitative, tied to the asOf date; verify live numbers before acting. The near-term picture is a revenue and profit dip as blockbusters lose exclusivity, so the stock is best judged on whether the newer growth brands and pipeline can restore mid-single-digit growth over the medium term rather than on a single trailing quarter.

Headline figures (approximate, MAY 2026): NAMS shows revenue (ttm) ~$22.6M, revenue (q1 2026) ~$3.0M, net loss (q1 2026) ~$48.4M, eps (q1 2026) ~-$0.40; NVS shows revenue (ttm) Approximately $50 billion in annual net sales; Q1 2026 net sales were about $13.1 billion, down roughly 5% at constant currency on generic erosion, growth drivers Priority brands Kisqali, Kesimpta, Pluvicto, Leqvio, and Scemblix growing well above 50% at constant currency, offsetting Entresto's decline, margins/profitability High core operating margin, around 40% in 2025; 2026 guidance is for a low single-digit decline in core operating income on generic and R&D pressure, dividend Pays an annual dividend with a long record of increases; yield has recently been roughly 2%, subject to currency and Swiss withholding tax for ADR holders.

NAMS and NVS are related but distinct: same themes, different businesses and risks. Neither wins in the abstract; the right pick is whichever thesis you actually believe, sized so you are not over-concentrated in one theme. Walnut can show your combined NAMS and NVS exposure against your real portfolio. It is not an investment adviser.