Which biotech companies are developing next-gen GLP-1 alternatives—and can they compete with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly by 2030?

As demand for glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) therapies continues to surge globally, several emerging biotech companies are challenging the market dominance of Novo Nordisk A/S (CPH: NOVO-B) and Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY). With injectables like Wegovy and Zepbound achieving blockbuster status, clinical-stage players such as Viking Therapeutics, Structure Therapeutics, and Altimmune are advancing oral GLP-1 drugs, dual agonists, and liver-targeted agents in an effort to differentiate through formulation, efficacy, or long-term tolerability.

While Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly currently lead a market projected to exceed $150 billion by the early 2030s, institutional investors are watching closely to determine whether next-generation GLP-1 pipelines from these biotech firms can realistically capture market share or become acquisition targets.

How is Viking Therapeutics leveraging VK2735 and VK2809 to challenge injectable GLP-1 leadership?

Viking Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VKTX) is positioning itself as a dual contender in the obesity and liver disease space with two differentiated assets: VK2735 and VK2809. VK2735 is a dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist being developed in both injectable and oral forms. In its Phase 2b VENTURE trial, the injectable version demonstrated promising safety and clinical benefit, prompting Viking to launch a Phase 3 obesity program in June 2025. The oral version, tested in a 28-day study, showed an average weight loss of 8.3%, with 100% of participants achieving at least 5% weight reduction.

Meanwhile, VK2809—an oral, liver-selective thyroid hormone receptor-β agonist—has delivered 38–55% liver fat reduction and 69–75% histologic resolution of NASH in biopsy-confirmed patients. These results position Viking as a potential leader in combination strategies for obesity and fatty liver disease.

Despite a Q1 2025 net loss of $45.6 million due to escalating R&D investments, Viking holds approximately $852 million in cash and cash equivalents, giving it runway through late-stage trials. Analysts see the American biotech company as an attractive takeover candidate, particularly for firms looking to add complementary obesity or NASH assets to their portfolios.

What makes Structure Therapeutics’ GSBR-1290 a viable oral GLP-1 competitor in development?

Structure Therapeutics (NASDAQ: GPCR) is developing GSBR-1290, a once-daily, oral, non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist designed to address limitations in injectable and peptide-based GLP-1 therapies. In a Phase 2a study, GSBR-1290 achieved 6.2% placebo-adjusted weight loss at 12 weeks and 6.9% in tablet formulation, with approximately one-third of patients experiencing weight loss greater than 10%.

These results, while modest compared to injectable semaglutide and tirzepatide, sparked strong investor enthusiasm—shares surged by over 45% following the announcement. Structure launched the 36-week Phase 2b ACCESS study in late 2024, with topline data expected by Q4 2025. The biotech firm emphasizes its cost-effective, scalable manufacturing model and a safety profile that could support long-term use in primary care.

Analysts believe Structure could secure a foothold in markets where injectables remain inaccessible or unaffordable, particularly in geographies lacking cold-chain infrastructure.

What is Altimmune’s strategic position in developing a muscle-sparing GLP-1/glucagon dual agonist?

Altimmune (NASDAQ: ALT) is advancing pemvidutide, a weekly GLP-1/glucagon dual agonist showing promise for obesity, metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), and cardiometabolic risk reduction. The company completed its MOMENTUM Phase 2 obesity trial in late 2024 and is now progressing toward a comprehensive VELOCITY Phase 3 program in collaboration with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Pemvidutide has differentiated itself through preservation of lean body mass, reduction of liver fat, and improvements in blood pressure and lipid profiles—all with a simplified dosing regimen that avoids titration. A favorable end-of-Phase 2 FDA meeting in May 2025 cleared the path for Altimmune to proceed with four parallel Phase 3 trials across obesity and MASH subpopulations, enrolling nearly 5,000 participants.

Institutional sentiment remains cautiously optimistic. Analysts view the dual-agonist mechanism and muscle-sparing profile as potentially disruptive if supported by durable efficacy in longer studies.

Can biotech firms like Viking, Structure, and Altimmune realistically erode Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly’s market share?

While these emerging firms are advancing credible clinical candidates, challenging the dominance of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly requires more than innovation. Both pharma giants benefit from robust manufacturing ecosystems, global reimbursement access, and diversified chronic care pipelines.

Novo Nordisk reported DKK 277.6 billion (USD 39.4 billion) in revenue in FY2024, with obesity and diabetes care accounting for the majority. Eli Lilly, on the strength of Zepbound, orforglipron, and a broader cardiometabolic portfolio, is on track to surpass $60 billion in annual revenue by 2026.

Still, analysts foresee room for segmentation. Injectables like Wegovy and Zepbound may continue to dominate first-line treatment and high-risk patient segments, while oral alternatives from Structure and Viking could target cost-sensitive or needle-averse populations. Altimmune’s pemvidutide, with its lean-mass preservation and liver efficacy, may appeal to clinicians managing complex comorbidities such as NASH and obesity in tandem.

What is the outlook for next-gen GLP-1 competitors over the next five years—and can they scale in a market dominated by semaglutide and tirzepatide?

By 2030, the global GLP-1 therapeutic landscape is expected to become significantly more diversified, with next-generation assets from emerging biotech firms carving out niche positions across both primary and specialty care. While Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly will likely retain first-mover advantage in injectable GLP-1 agonists such as semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), companies like Structure Therapeutics, Viking Therapeutics, and Altimmune are advancing differentiated platforms that could transform access, administration, and tolerability in chronic obesity and metabolic disease care.

Structure Therapeutics is positioning its oral non-peptide GLP-1 receptor agonist GSBR-1290 as a scalable, lower-cost alternative to injection-based therapies. Following positive Phase 2a obesity data, the company launched its 36-week Phase 2b ACCESS study in late 2024, with topline data expected by the end of 2025. If successful, Structure aims to initiate pivotal Phase 3 trials in 2026 and pursue regulatory filings by 2027 or 2028. Analysts suggest that GSBR-1290 could emerge as one of the first widely available oral GLP-1 pills not based on peptide chemistry, positioning it for mass-market appeal across both U.S. and international primary care settings.

Viking Therapeutics is progressing on two fronts. First, its oral and injectable dual GLP-1/GIP agonist VK2735 is being developed for high-efficacy, lean-mass-preserving obesity treatment. Top-line data from the oral formulation arm of the VENTURE program is expected in late 2025, with Phase 3 trials anticipated to follow shortly. Concurrently, VK2809—a thyroid hormone receptor β agonist—is targeting the NASH and MASH segments, giving Viking exposure to the metabolic liver disease pipeline. With multiple shots on goal and nearly $850 million in cash, the American biotech company could be among the first to launch both an oral GLP-1/GIP and a liver-specific obesity drug within the same commercial cycle.

Altimmune, meanwhile, is executing a long-term strategy centered around pemvidutide, a weekly dual GLP-1/glucagon agonist that has demonstrated not only weight loss but also class-leading lean mass retention, liver fat reduction, and improvements in cardiometabolic markers. Following a successful FDA end-of-Phase 2 meeting in Q2 2025, the company is preparing to launch the VELOCITY Phase 3 program in 2026, which will include four trials across obesity and MASH patient cohorts. Pemvidutide’s once-weekly dosing without the need for titration offers potential for simplified clinical adoption and broader patient appeal.

Collectively, these biotech innovators are forecast to capture between 10% and 20% of the global GLP-1 prescription volume by 2030, according to institutional estimates. This translates to a projected $15–$30 billion market opportunity, particularly in geographies or payer environments where cost, delivery format, and long-term tolerability are deciding factors in treatment uptake.

However, the road to commercialization remains complex. To succeed, these companies must prove that their candidates can deliver competitive efficacy with improved safety, scalable manufacturing, and payer-friendly pricing models. Unlike the large-scale distribution networks of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, emerging firms will also need to navigate reimbursement access, global regulatory variations, and real-world evidence generation to secure long-term formulary placement.

Strategic partnerships or outright acquisitions could accelerate timelines. Analysts widely expect at least one of these biotech players to enter into co-commercialization or licensing agreements with larger pharmaceutical partners—particularly as top-tier incumbents look to defend their franchises from biosimilar GLP-1s and diversify into oral or dual-agonist formats. Altimmune and Structure have been repeatedly flagged as potential M&A targets, while Viking’s dual clinical-pathway model is considered highly complementary for companies with overlapping cardiometabolic pipelines.

While none of these firms are likely to overtake the incumbents in scale, they may soon become indispensable complements in a rapidly expanding, multi-tiered obesity drug market. As GLP-1 therapeutics move beyond weight loss into liver, cardiovascular, and muscle-preservation domains, the success of next-gen alternatives will depend not only on science—but on strategic agility and cross-sector integration.