Boston Scientific vs 3M
BSX and MMM 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 BSX and MMM compare
3M is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Boston Scientific ($89.9B against $60.8B).
On earnings, Boston Scientific is cheaper: it trades at 17.0× trailing earnings, against 31.0× for 3M.
Boston Scientific grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.5% versus 2.3% for 3M).
3M pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Boston Scientific does not pay one.
Boston Scientific scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for 3M), 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 | BSX | MMM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $60.8B | $89.9B |
| Share price | $41.98 | $174.34 |
| Change, 1 year | −58.1% | 5.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −2.7% | −4.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.77 | 1.03 |
| Employees | 59K | 61K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.0× (better) | 31.0× |
| P/S | 2.9× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 30.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.1× (better) | 16.6× |
| P/FCF | 16.8× (better) | 22.6× |
| PEG | 0.27 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.0% (better) | 4.4% |
| Fair value | $93.08 | $124.05 |
| Margin of safety | 54.9% (better) | −40.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.5% (better) | 2.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.2% (better) | −5.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −23.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 47.0% (better) | −21.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −8.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 69.9% (better) | 39.4% |
| Operating margin | 19.8% (better) | 18.4% |
| Net margin | – | 11.9% |
| FCF margin | 17.3% (better) | 15.8% |
| Return on equity | – | 82.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.2% | 27.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.51 (better) | 4.25 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.17 | 1.60 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 11.4× (better) | 5.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 (better) | 1.24 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.87 | 4.49 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 53.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −13.1% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.1% | 75.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.19% | 0.09% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.0M (better) | −$21.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 1.9% |
Go deeper
- BSX stock overview
- BSX income statement
- BSX valuation and score
- MMM stock overview
- MMM income statement
- MMM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.