Alivus Life Sciences Ltd

Price story Before the numbers, the tape. A stock price moves through four repeating seasons: a flat base (stage 1), an advance (2), a top (3), a decline (4). Where the price sits in that cycle frames everything below.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd trades at ₹1,387, in a confirmed uptrend and 18 weeks into that stage. That is +31.4% against its own 200-day average. It sits at 100% of a 52-week range of ₹880 to ₹1,387. On relative strength it has been ahead of the NIFTY 500 on a trailing-13-week view for 7 straight weeks.

Today the stock is in a confirmed uptrend — week 18 of stage 2, confirmed. At ₹1,387 it trades +31.4% versus its 200-day average and sits at 100% of its 52-week range (₹880–₹1,387).

Against the market, two honest reads. Cumulative: over the last 5.0 years the stock moved +85% while the NIFTY 500 moved +70% — ahead of the index over the full window. Recent form: on a trailing-13-week view the stock has been ahead for 7 straight weeks — the ribbon below is that same metric, week by week.

What would end the trend, mechanically: two Friday closes in a row below the 200-day line. That is the exit rule — no debates.

Story check

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd's story is not scored yet against the markers our research file set on 27 June 2026. Where it sits in its own cycle: MID_EXPANSION. Still open: Management missed QX FYX CDMO deal closure target (was QX, now early HX FYX) — Xrd consecutive timeline slip across capex, facilities, and deals.

Our read, 27 June 2026. A generic API compounder mid-transition to specialty CDMO — record X.X% EBITDA margin in FYX, but management execution on timelines is systematically late.

From the numbers. PE at X.Xx the X-year median (Xth percentile) — not compressed. First expansion cycle ever (trough Sep X, no prior cycles). Earnings-driven decomposition means earnings growth must sustain the multiple. FII selling…

From the price. Price stage 2, week 18 — above its 200-day line, relative strength rising.

From the research. A generic API compounder mid-transition to specialty CDMO — record X.X% EBITDA margin in FYX, but management execution on timelines is systematically late.

🚨 Where they disagree. PE at X.Xx the X-year median (Xth percentile) — not compressed. First expansion cycle ever (trough Sep X, no prior cycles). Earnings-driven decomposition means earnings growth must sustain the multiple. FII selling (signal from pe_pb_cycle: FII_SELLING) is a headwind — institutional distribution while PE above median warrants monitoring.

What is proven. A generic API compounder mid-transition to specialty CDMO — record X.X% EBITDA margin in FYX, but management execution on timelines is systematically late.

What is not proven yet. Management missed QX FYX CDMO deal closure target (was QX, now early HX FYX) — Xrd consecutive timeline slip across capex, facilities, and deals.

Layer 1 read, 19 July 2026 — KEEP. Held pharma compounder: margins at a record high and EPS rising, but PE is elevated and management keeps missing capex timelines. The earnings engine is genuinely inflecting — FY26 PAT grew 16% and EBITDA margin hit an all-time high of 33.6% on the shift to specialty/CDMO from bulk generics, and per-share EPS has climbed off its mid-2024 trough to 13.25. The multiple has been compressing over the last eight quarters even as EPS rose, so this is a de-rating within earnings growth, not a re-rate to reject. But conviction is held at P2 by three real drags: every number is model-graded (no concall to verify), working capital has bloated to 306 days, and capex/CDMO deadlines have slipped four calls running (R2).

What would change Layer 1’s mind. A fifth consecutive capex/CDMO slip at the next concall (Solapur Phase 1 not commissioned by Q2 FY27 AND no CDMO deal closed) with EBITDA margin rolling back below 30% — that would break the 'trust the margin, discount the timeline' thesis and turn the WC bloat into an accrual-quality problem.

Layer 2 read, 19 July 2026 — ADVANCE. Held API-to-specialty name with margins at an all-time high and strong cash this year — sector tailwind intact, keep it. Alivus is an open position whose earnings-led thesis is intact: FY26 PAT +16% and EBITDA margin an all-time-high 33.6%[C003 ⚠ model-grade], with the multiple compressing on the 8-quarter window despite a 77th-percentile PE [C005 ⚠]. The API/bulk sub-sector reads a TAILWIND (tijori fallback, WEAK conviction) and this year's OCF +44.1% / FCF +97.8% contradict the working-capital-drain worry. The known caveats — WC at 306 days and four straight capex/CDMO timeline misses — keep it a hold rather than an add, but none is a new external negative that would break the thesis.

What would change Layer 2’s mind. A cited external negative would flip ADVANCE->DROP: e.g. a Tier-1 governance/regulatory flag on Alivus, or the API sub-sector caveats materialising into evidence of accelerating generic-API price erosion + a fifth consecutive capex/CDMO slip WHILE OCF turns negative and WC keeps bloating — i.e. the working-capital absorption proving structural rather than transient.

Layer 3 read, 19 July 2026 — BENCH. Real cash and record margins, but a 3rd straight CDMO slip and a synthetic timeline keep it on the bench. Alivus delivers on profitability (record 36.4% EBITDA margin, guidance BEAT) and current cash is strong (OCF +44.1%, FCF +97.8%), so there is no thesis break. But management has now missed capex/CDMO execution four times running (FY26 capex Rs 306 Cr vs Rs 450 Cr revised guide), the promoter has cut its stake ~8pp, and the whole timeline is web-fallback synthetic (43 of 47 claims inferred) — too soft a base to add fresh capital on an already-elevated PE.

What would change Layer 3’s mind. A clean, non-synthetic concall that CLOSES at least one CDMO deal on the revised H2 FY27 timeline AND reaffirms FY27 revenue guidance, with the promoter stake stabilising — that flips BENCH→DEPLOY. Conversely, a USFDA warning letter at Ankleshwar/Dahej/Solapur escalates regulatory to HIGH.

The test written in advance. CDMO deal closure slippage — structural pattern (3rd consecutive slip) — CDMO deal closure slippage — structural pattern (3rd consecutive slip) QX FYX CDMO as % of quarterly revenue — must show >X% to indicate new deal traction by the next result.

The test written in advance. Capex execution — 4 consecutive guidance misses (FY26 actual Rs 306 Cr vs Rs 450 Cr revised guidance) — Capex execution — 4 consecutive guidance misses (FY26 actual Rs 306 Cr vs Rs 450 Cr revised guidance) FYX QX/QX cumulative capex vs Rs X Cr target (X% of annual guide by HX) by the next result.

The test written in advance. Generic API price erosion ~4.5% — requires 15-17% volume growth for net high single-digit revenue — Generic API price erosion ~4.5% — requires 15-17% volume growth for net high single-digit revenue QX FYX non-GPL revenue growth YoY — must hold above X% to confirm the mix-driven buffer by the next result.

What the company does. FY26 closed at revenue +6.9% and PAT +16.0% YoY, with EBITDA margin expanding 360 bps to 33.6% (all-time high) — driven by non-GPL mix shift (59%→71% of revenue) and CDMO recovery. PE 22.7x sits 1.28x the 10-year median at the 70th percentile — not cheap, but earnings-driven with FII selling and first-expansion cycle; margin delivery justifies a premium over historical range. The FY28 optionality — high-potency API patent expiries and Solapur greenfield (2,060 KL total capacity) — is real but management has missed capex and facility timelines on four consecutive calls.

Lever 2 · Value-added mix — BUILDING. Non-GPL business at X% of revenue (from X% in FYX) growing X% YoY — primary earnings engine with better margins than the shrinking GPL base. What proves it keeps working: Non-GPL Mix Shift (59%→71%+ of revenue, growing 13% YoY). It stops working if QX FYX CDMO as % of quarterly revenue — must show >X% to indicate new deal traction.

Lever 1 · Operating leverage — BUILDING. EBITDA margin expanded X bps to X.X% in FYX, hitting an all-time high post PLI subsidy exit — structural, not subsidy-dependent. What proves it keeps working: Margin Re-rating (EBITDA 360 bps expansion to 33.6% all-time high). It stops working if QX FYX CDMO as % of quarterly revenue — must show >X% to indicate new deal traction.

Lever 7 · Consolidation — BUILDING. CDMO recovered X% YoY in FYX (X%→X% of revenue mix) with Projects X and X gaining traction — higher-margin segment that differentiates from generic API peers. What proves it keeps working: CDMO Recovery and Phase 4/5 Ramp. It stops working if QX FYX CDMO as % of quarterly revenue — must show >X% to indicate new deal traction.

Lever 6 · Order-book wins — BUILDING. Solapur Phase X (X KL backward integration + X KL API block) targeted for QX FYX — enables volume growth and reduces input costs, though this date has already slipped twice. What proves it keeps working: Capacity Expansion (1,198→2,060 KL by FY28 via Solapur + Brownfield). It stops working if QX FYX CDMO as % of quarterly revenue — must show >X% to indicate new deal traction.

Sources: our stock research file (27 June 2026) · quarterly results through Jun 26 · the company’s own earnings calls. The story check is re-scored every results season; the record below never changes.

Revenue Revenue is the top line: everything the company billed its customers in the period.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd reported ₹640 Cr of revenue in the Jun 26 quarter, +6.3% year on year. That is the 7th straight quarter of year-on-year growth. The last full year, FY26, came in at ₹2,552 Cr. The last four reported quarters add to ₹2,590 Cr.

Why this happened. The CDMO segment was weak through HX FYX (temporary slowdown on Projects X-X) before recovering sharply in HX, delivering X% QoQ and X.X% YoY growth in QX. ADC (antibody-drug conjugate) conjugation capability is now commercially deployed with FYX revenue of Rs X million — management positions conjugation as a core moat hard to replicate. Projects X and X together target ~$X million annual potential. Two new deals targeted for early HX FYX, though timeline has already slipped from QX FYX — this is the key watch item.

FY26 revenue came in at ₹2,552 Cr (+6.9% on the year). The latest quarter (Jun 26) printed ₹640 Cr, +6.3% year on year — the 7th consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth.

Acceleration check: trailing-twelve-month revenue grew +7.9% over the last 4 quarters against +6.3%/yr over the last 8 — stabilising; TTM profit +21.6% vs +16.1%/yr — accelerating.

Operating margin Operating margin is what is left of every ₹100 of sales after running the business, before interest and tax. It is the cleanest read on pricing power and cost control.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd's operating margin is 33.0% in the Jun 26 quarter, +4.0 percentage points against the same quarter a year ago. That is the widest this company has ever printed on a full-year basis. Across 9 fiscal years the operating margin has ranged −4.0% to 31.0%. The current quarter is running above every full year in that window.

Why this happened. The portfolio pivot away from Glenmark-linked GPL volumes is structurally locked in. Non-GPL business spans Europe, Japan, LatAm, ROW, and India — X new customers added in FYX (total ~X), X new products launched. The geography diversification (Japan: X→X-X commercial products; LatAm recovery post-Argentina normalization) reduces customer concentration risk. Non-GPL commands less pricing erosion than commoditized generic APIs and supports the X-X% EBITDA margin guidance. Management expects the X% share to continue expanding toward X%+.

The latest quarter's operating margin is 33.0%, +4.0 pp against the same quarter a year ago. Across 9 fiscal years the operating margin has ranged −4.0%–31.0%, and FY26's 31.0% is the top of that band — a record year.

Why the margin moved: operating margin went +4.4 pp year on year while gross margin went +5.1 pp — the gain came mostly from the gross line: input costs and pricing.

Worth repeating from the valuation section: cheap against its own history on record margins is not the same thing as cheap — a record margin flatters every ratio built on top of it.

Net profit Net profit is what survives every cost, interest and tax — the number EPS, dividends and book value all grow from.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd earned ₹160 Cr of net profit in the Jun 26 quarter, +31.1% year on year. It is the 7th consecutive quarter of growth. Full-year FY26 profit was ₹564 Cr. That is 25.0% of the quarter's revenue. The same quarter a year earlier earned ₹122 Cr.

Jun 26 profit was ₹160 Cr, +31.1% year on year — the 7th consecutive quarter of growth. On the full year, FY26 printed ₹564 Cr (+16.0%).

Why profit moved: revenue contributed +6.3% and the margin +4.0 pp — the quarter was margin-led: most of the profit growth came from keeping more of each sale.

Pace comparison, last four quarters: profit +23.0% vs revenue +8.3%. Profit is growing faster than sales — fixed costs are being spread over a bigger base, and each extra rupee of revenue drops more to the bottom line.

Cash flow — the router The P&L says what was earned; the cash-flow statement says what actually arrived. Operating cash flow (CFO) against profit is the cleanest lie detector in the accounts.

Over the last 3 fiscal years 90% of Alivus Life Sciences Ltd's reported profit arrived as operating cash — the cash follows the profit. In FY26 that was ₹565 Cr of operating cash against ₹564 Cr of profit. After ₹340 Cr of capital spending, ₹225 Cr was left as free cash.

FY26: operating cash of ₹565 Cr against reported profit of ₹564 Cr, leaving free cash of ₹225 Cr after ₹340 Cr of capital spending. Across the last 3 fiscal years the conversion rate is 90% of profit.

Cash-flow readings here are annual — that is the resolution our series carries, so this section moves once a year.

Why conversion sits at 90%: the cash cycle stretched 26 days between FY21 and FY26 — more of each rupee of profit waits inside the cycle before arriving.

Router verdict: the bigger cash user is investment — capital spending ran 3.5× depreciation over three years, so the next section's job is to check what that build-out is buying.

Where the cash goes Working capital is the cash tied up between paying suppliers and getting paid: debtor days (customers owe), inventory days (stock waits), and the cash conversion cycle (the whole loop, in days of sales).

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd's cash conversion cycle runs 267 days in FY26, up from 241 days in FY21. Capital spending ran ₹668 Cr over the last 3 years. At FY26 sales of ₹2,552 Cr each day of that cycle holds about ₹7.0 Cr, so roughly ₹1,867 Cr sits inside the business at any moment.

FY26: debtors at 153 days, inventory at 246 days — roughly 8.1 months of stock waiting to sell; that is where the cash sits while it waits — for a full cycle of 267 days, looser than FY21's 241.

The full loop: cash goes out to suppliers and production on day 0; stock waits 246 days to sell; customers pay about 153 days after that; and suppliers themselves are paid at 132 days — netting out to the 267-day cycle.

In money terms: at FY26 sales of ₹2,552 Cr, each day of the cycle holds about ₹7.0 Cr — so the 267-day loop keeps roughly ₹1,867 Cr sitting inside the business at any moment.

On the investment side: capital spending of ₹668 Cr over the last 3 fiscal years against ₹189 Cr of depreciation — the company is building well ahead of wear-and-tear. Capital work-in-progress stands at ₹284 Cr (FY26) — capacity paid for but not yet earning.

The synthesis: the cash is going into capacity, not disappearing into the cycle — the question becomes whether the new capacity earns.

Return on capital Return on capital employed (ROCE) is the profit the whole business earns on all the money in it — equity and debt together. It is the single best test of whether growth creates value or just size.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd earns a ROCE of 24% in FY26. Return on invested capital clears the cost of that capital by +9.9 percentage points, so growth here adds value rather than only size. The wiring behind it is 22.1% net margin on 0.64× asset turns.

FY26 ROCE is 24%.

Why the return is what it is — the wiring (FY26): 22.1% net margin × 0.64× asset turns × 1.20× balance-sheet leverage ≈ 17.0% on equity. Margin is doing the heavy lifting; leverage is modest — this is an earned return, not a borrowed one.

The capstone test — ROIC − WACC: 21.9% − 12.0% = a +9.9 pp spread. The 12.0% is a standing assumption for the cost of capital in India, not a per-stock estimate — read the sign and the size of the spread, not the decimals. A spread this wide means every rupee reinvested creates more than a rupee of value — the engine compounds.

Debt Debt-to-equity says how much of the business is funded by borrowings. Low is the safe corner; the trend matters as much as the level.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd carries total debt of ₹57.0 Cr against shareholder equity of ₹3,332 Cr as of Mar 26, a debt-to-equity of 0.02 — effectively unlevered. On the annual view that ratio went from 0.00 in FY22 to 0.02 in FY26. The returns elsewhere on this page are therefore earned rather than borrowed.

Mar 26: total debt of ₹57.0 Cr against shareholder equity of ₹3,332 Cr — a debt-to-equity of 0.02. On the annual view, debt-to-equity went from 0.00 (FY22) to 0.02 (FY26). The returns on this page are earned, not borrowed.

Ownership Who owns the stock, quarter by quarter: promoters (the controlling owners), foreign and domestic institutions, and the public. Steady accumulation by people close to the numbers is a signal; a quiet register is also an answer.

Promoters cut 8.0 points of Alivus Life Sciences Ltd over 8 quarters, the biggest move on the register. That takes promoters to 74.9% of the company. Domestic institutions moved +5.6 points over the same window, to 7.2%. The register is read on the four disclosed classes only; nothing is inferred between filings.

The register over the last two years — Promoters: −8.0 points over 8 quarters to 74.9%; Domestic institutions: +5.6 points over 8 quarters to 7.2%; Foreign institutions: +0.7 points over 8 quarters to 5.5%.

🚨 Why the register moved: promoters drove it (−8.0 points), absorbed on the other side by domestic institutions (+5.6 points) — distribution into the market’s bid.

Safety line The Z-score estimates how far a company sits from balance-sheet distress — above roughly 3 is safe, below roughly 1.8 is the danger zone. It was built for manufacturers, so it is not applied to banks and lenders.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd: the Z-score is not available for this stock, so we say so rather than invent one. It is a distance-to-distress estimate from the balance sheet, not a forecast of failure. The debt, cash-flow and return sections above carry the balance-sheet evidence this page does hold, and each of them states its own reporting date.

The safety line in one sentence: the Z-score is not available for this stock, so we say so rather than invent one.

Valuation P/E is the price of ₹1 of annual profit: how many rupees the market pays for each rupee the company earns in a year.

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd trades at 27.4× P/E, at the pricey end of its own range (87th percentile). Its long-run median P/E is 19.3×, measured across 5.0 years of weekly readings. This places the multiple against the stock’s own record, and says nothing about what the business is worth.

Today's P/E of 27.4× is at the pricey end of its own range (87th percentile), against a long-run median of 19.3× measured over 5.0 years of weekly readings. This is a comparison against the stock's own history — not a claim about what it is worth.

🚨 Why the multiple sits where it does: over the past year annual EPS moved +16.0% against a +46.9% price move — the price outran earnings, pushing the multiple UP its own range.

The price move, decomposed: over 5y, of the +12.8%/yr price move, ~−32.5%/yr came from earnings growth and ~+45.3 pp from the multiple (expanding). The split is the honest approximate (price return minus earnings growth); it makes the rally itself visible instead of hiding it behind the percentile.

Put together: the multiple is full against its own past, so the story rests on the earnings line underneath it, not the multiple.

What the price assumes This reading works the multiple backwards. It asks one question: what yearly rate of profit growth is a buyer at the market price already paying for? The number is the growth rate that makes eleven years of profit — six years growing, then five fading — add up to that day's market price, once each year is discounted at 11% a year.

At its price on 20 July 2026, Alivus Life Sciences Ltd was priced for profit growth of about 14.1% a year. The market pays that at 27.4× P/E, the 87th percentile of its own 5-year range.

What the two numbers say together. The multiple is full against its own past, and the growth the price is paying for is the whole of what a buyer is backing. Both readings sit on the same earnings, so they are one reading rather than two.

How to hold this number: it is a reading of one day's price, taken on 20 July 2026, not a running figure. A higher price is paying for more growth and a lower price for less, so it moves whenever the price does, and this page does not restate it between measurements. Every other number on this page is read off the live quote.

Stage: Improving Every business sits somewhere on a fundamental arc, and this page names the spot before anything else. The last twelve quarters of revenue, profit and EPS growth — plus the return the business earns on its capital — are read as curves: Deteriorating (the curves are falling), Turning around (a trough has just formed and the last few quarters lift off it), Improving (the climb off the trough is sustained), Consistent (steadily positive with healthy returns), Topping out (still high but decelerating from the peak). When the curves genuinely disagree the read is Mixed; too little history is No read. CAGR (compound annual growth rate) is the smooth yearly pace that turns the starting value into the latest one — the fairest way to compare growth across different time spans. Read the columns together: if the 1-year number towers over the 10-year, recent growth is running hotter than the long-run trend. A dash means that window is not held, or the base year was a loss (where a growth rate is not meaningful).

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd reads as improving on its fundamental arc. Improving — profit growth bottomed 6 quarters ago at −15.0% and has held its recovery at +21.6%, ROCE holding at 23.5%. The read is built from 12 quarters across 4 curves, on full evidence.

Why it matters: a sustained climb off the trough is the setup this page is built to catch — the question moves to what you pay for it.

4-Factor Sector Score

72.5/100 — rank 1 of 2 in Pharmaceuticals Bulk Drugs & Formulation · 97% evidence confidence

Alivus Life Sciences Ltd scores 72.5 out of 100 against the 2 companies it is compared with in Pharmaceuticals Bulk Drugs & Formulation, ranking 1. Balanced evidence: keep at normal research priority and require another comparable period before raising conviction.

The four contributions add to the total exactly: 22.6 + 20 + 11.2 + 18.7 = 72.5. This is the SAME number shown on the sector comparison — it is computed once, for the whole peer set, and read here.

What would change it: The read weakens if profit growth turns negative or margin improvement reverses while sector-relative strength deteriorates.

Said versus delivered

What Alivus Life Sciences Ltd's management promised, set against what actually arrived — 4 tracked promises on the record. Read straight from the company’s own earnings calls. A promise that slipped stays on this page after it is met.

Revenue Guidance Raised Without a Clear Bridge · 31 July 2026. The May 2026 call guided revenue growth for next year in the high single digit range, while the July 2026 call explicitly raised the FY27 revenue outlook to 10-12%, a material change to the top-line assumption. Although the latest call points to 26.5% non-GPL growth and sustained demand, it does not explicitly reconcile the higher FY27 guidance with the prior high-single-digit outlook.

🚨 CDMO New Deal Closure Timeline Slipped · 15 May 2026. In the Jan 2026 call, management explicitly committed to closing 1-2 new CDMO projects by Q1 FY27 (April-June 2026), describing active pipeline traction and early customer supply as evidence of progress. In the May 2026 year-end call, that same timeline was shifted to early H2 FY27 (from October 2026 onwards) with no substantive new information offered to justify the change. When an analyst directly challenged this inconsistency by name, management acknowledged the push-out while framing it only as a precautionary moderation rather than providing a concrete explanation.

🚨 FY26 Capex Actuals Materially Missed Revised Guidance · 15 May 2026. In the Jan 2026 call, management had already cut FY26 capex guidance from 600 crore to 450 crore, attributing a 150 crore deferral to FY27. The May 2026 year-end call reported actual FY26 capex of only 306 crore - a further 32% shortfall from that one-quarter-old revised guidance - without explicitly explaining the incremental miss. The FY27 capex is now guided at 540 crore, implying a materially larger carryover than the 150 crore communicated in Jan 2026, yet management provided no bridging explanation for why actual FY26 spend fell so far short of the recently revised figure.

FY27 Revenue Growth Guidance Quietly Dropped · 15 May 2026. In the Jan 2026 call, management explicitly extended their high single-digit revenue growth guidance forward to FY27, providing concrete directional guidance investors could model. In the May 2026 year-end call - the most natural occasion to reaffirm or formally revise that FY27 outlook - no revenue growth guidance was offered. When asked about the future growth trajectory, management deflected to macro headwinds from the war and pivoted exclusively to margin sustainability, neither reiterating nor formally withdrawing the previously stated FY27 guidance.

Every quote above is taken word for word from the company’s own earnings calls.

Frequently asked questions