Baxter International vs Teleflex
BAX and TFX side by side, both in surgical, medical, and dental instruments and supplies. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BAX and TFX compare
Baxter International is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Teleflex ($11.9B against $5.9B).
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (30.7% versus 5.3% for Baxter International).
Baxter International keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −6.2% compared with −45.8% at Teleflex.
Both pay dividends: Baxter International yields 0.17% and Teleflex 0.97%.
Baxter International scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 7 for Teleflex), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | BAX | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $11.9B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $23.00 | $139.77 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.6% | 9.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −70.5% | −60.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.81 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 38K | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 1.0× (better) | 2.6× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.6× (better) | 43.7× |
| P/FCF | – | 35.2× |
| FCF yield | – | 2.8% |
| Fair value | $24.60 | $36.02 |
| Margin of safety | 6.5% (better) | −288% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.3% | 30.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.75% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −638% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −645% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 30.1% | 54.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | −1.9% | 2.0% (better) |
| Net margin | −6.2% (better) | −45.8% |
| FCF margin | – | 7.5% |
| Return on equity | −10.5% (better) | −28.9% |
| Return on invested capital | −3.0% | 0.62% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.13 (better) | 0.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −1.54 | 13.01 (better) |
| Interest coverage | −0.8× | 0.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.79 | 2.60 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.31 (better) | 1.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.17% | 0.97% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −11.4% | 0.00% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.17% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 108% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 0.73% |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- BAX stock overview
- BAX income statement
- BAX valuation and score
- TFX stock overview
- TFX income statement
- TFX valuation and score
Other comparisons
- BAX vs BDX
- BAX vs BSX
- BAX vs MDT
- BAX vs RMD
- BAX vs SOLV
- BAX vs SYK
- GMED vs TFX
- MSA vs TFX
- PEN vs TFX
- SOLV vs TFX
- TFX vs WST
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.