The GLP-1 Narrative: Lilly vs. Novo in the War of the Words
The $63B GLP-1 market isn’t just about receptors, it’s about stories.
The global fight over GLP-1 drugs isn’t being waged only in clinics and on Wall Street. It’s also happening in a more subtle arena: the story war. And if you ask most people who’s winning hearts and minds right now, their instinctive answer is Lilly.
But in a $63 billion market projected to reach $100 billion in 2030, intuition about the story isn’t enough. My Signal Score™ diagnostic analysis of all four products backs it up with data. Looking at Lilly’s Zepbound and Mounjaro versus Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Wegovy, the numbers show Lilly nudging ahead in narrative clarity, credibility, and resonance. The scores are tight, with Zepbound (84/100), Mounjaro (81/100), Wegovy (78/100) Ozempic (75/100), but Lilly’s dual-receptor positioning clearly “out-narrating” Novo’s heritage story.
The method behind the diagnostic
How do you measure something as slippery as “story”? In this case, I narrowed the inputs down to three of the strongest, most widespread signals a company sends about its brands:
Product homepage: the polished story the manufacturer wants the world to see.
Press releases (2025 only): the emphasis and rhythm of what the companies choose to talk about.
Product insert (PI): the sober, regulator-facing truth.
Taken together, these sources let us compare apples to apples (or… semaglutides to tirzepatides). Each is consistent across all four products, each carries weight with different audiences, and together they reveal not just what the companies are saying, but how tightly their public story aligns with what they tell regulators.
The Lilly narrative advantage
Before diving into the details, the big picture is clear: Lilly’s dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor story creates narrative superiority. While Novo talks about optimizing single-pathway GLP-1 therapy, Lilly positions breakthrough innovation that makes existing treatments look outdated.
In this case, it’s not necessarily about “better science,” but about better positioning of science in the storytelling.
Let’s look at how the stories are being told.
Decoding press releases
One of the clearest windows into what a company wants the world to notice, press releases for pharmaceuticals are often required by regulators: for label changes or safety updates, for example. But many press releases are discretionary: highlighting head-to-head wins, launching patient programs, amplifying access initiatives. That’s where the real story emphasis shows up.
Zepbound has been the louder brand in 2025, with multiple releases from Lilly focused on access and affordability (new vial options, self-pay programs) and, crucially, head-to-head data against Wegovy (showing superior 20.2% vs 13.7% weight loss). Mounjaro, by contrast, has just one major 2025 release by Lilly so far -- a mandatory(ish) trial outcomes disclosure, clearly positioned as a credibility boost. The delta matters: Zepbound’s releases are proactive and market-shaping, while Mounjaro’s is more reactive and data-bound. Together they show Lilly’s chips are stacked behind Zepbound, as a product and as a flagship story.
Why the PI matters
This part is especially interesting. Product inserts may be the driest of documents, but they’re also the truest. They’re the voice of a company talking to regulators, with no room for flourish, theme songs, or other narrative embellishment. By comparing the PI against the brand website and press releases, you see the gaps where marketing pushes harder, where science may be softened, or where emphasis shifts. Those gaps tell you as much about a brand’s narrative as the words themselves.
The Signal Score™ diagnostic
I scored each product’s narrative across seven dimensions: purpose boldness, problem clarity, point-of-view differentiation, approach credibility, priority focus, stakeholder connection, and commitment strength. Each weighted, totaled to 100.
Here’s what those abstract-sounding categories look like when you put real-world brand language under the microscope:
Zepbound (Lilly) 84/100
Purpose: Delivers “superior weight loss outcomes through breakthrough dual-receptor innovation.” Clear and bold, positioning itself as a category-definer.
Commitments: Patient access front and center, with repeated pledges to expand affordability through LillyDirect and self-pay programs.
Standout strength: Perfect POV differentiation (20/20) through genuine therapeutic breakthrough.
Mounjaro (Lilly) 81/100
Approach: Positioned as the dual-agonist diabetes drug that can “redefine diabetes treatment” by delivering superior glycemic control and weight reduction.
Commitments: Less about access, more about proving credibility with regulators and physicians.
Standout strengths: Perfect POV differentiation (20/20) and Approach credibility (15/15).
Wegovy (Novo Nordisk) 78/100
Purpose: Framed around transforming obesity treatment through “clinically meaningful weight loss that reduces cardiovascular risk.” A bit vague, lacking clear positioning.
Problem: Emphasizes the scale of obesity as a public health crisis. Credible, but not particularly differentiated.
Ozempic (Novo Nordisk) 75/100
Approach: “Proven semaglutide therapy through once-weekly injections” providing comprehensive diabetes protection. Credible, with heavy emphasis on its already-iconic brand status.
Commitments: Implicit rather than explicit, mostly about maintaining safety and tolerability.
The result? Lilly’s dual-receptor narrative creates decisive advantages. Their breakthrough innovation story makes Novo’s existing treatments look like yesterday’s technology. Both Zepbound and Mounjaro from Lilly score higher overall than Ozempic and Wegovy, and dominate in POV differentiation, the dimension that matters most for cutting through market noise.
Soft on Commitments, but that hurts only one company
One of the more revealing findings is that all four products struggle with Commitment strength (4-6/10), but Lilly’s innovation positioning and POV makes this dimension less critical. When you’re promising breakthrough therapy, stakeholders expect bold science claims. When you’re promising heritage and reliability, they expect bold commitments. In this context, Novo’s weaker commitment scores hurt them more.
Why this matters
None of this is just academic. Stories shape markets – in this case, a market projected to reach $100 billion in five years. Narrative advantages translate directly to market share. A company that can tell a bold, clear, credible story wins trust faster, sustains attention longer, and lays the groundwork for the next launch or label expansion.
In this GLP-1 arms race, science alone won’t decide the winner. Narrative will, too. And right now, Lilly’s story is landing with more force.
Which is exactly what a good narrative should do.
