Danaher vs Thermo Fisher Scientific
DHR and TMO side by side, both in laboratory apparatus and analytical, optical, measuring, and controlling instruments. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DHR and TMO compare
Thermo Fisher Scientific is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Danaher ($258B against $167B).
On earnings, Thermo Fisher Scientific is cheaper: it trades at 36.8× trailing earnings, against 42.1× for Danaher.
Thermo Fisher Scientific grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.3% versus 4.6% for Danaher).
Danaher keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.9% compared with 14.9% at Thermo Fisher Scientific.
Both pay dividends: Danaher yields 0.64% and Thermo Fisher Scientific 0.26%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | DHR | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $167B | $258B |
| Share price | $236.98 | $697.00 |
| Change, 1 year | 9.3% | 24.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −18.9% | 13.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.94 | 0.83 |
| Employees | 60K | 125K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 12 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 42.1× | 36.8× (better) |
| P/S | 6.6× | 5.4× (better) |
| P/B | 3.2× (better) | 4.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 36.8× | 34.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 30.5× (better) | 33.9× |
| PEG | – | 177.22 |
| FCF yield | 3.3% (better) | 2.9% |
| Fair value | $186.55 | $549.56 |
| Margin of safety | −27.0% | −26.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.6% | 8.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | 6.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 17.3% (better) | 7.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 19.8% (better) | 9.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.65% | 2.1% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 58.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 20.4% (better) | 17.9% |
| Net margin | 15.9% (better) | 14.9% |
| FCF margin | 21.8% (better) | 16.0% |
| Return on equity | 7.6% | 13.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.1% | 8.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.51 (better) | 0.76 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.33 | 4.17 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 17.6× (better) | 5.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.65 | 1.81 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.77 | 4.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.64% (better) | 0.26% |
| Payout ratio | 24.1% | 9.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.3% |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 1.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.4% (better) | 1.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 82.2% | 90.9% |
| Held by insiders | 8.9% | 0.13% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$128M (better) | −$144M |
| Superinvestors holding | 10 (better) | 7 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.4% | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- DHR stock overview
- DHR income statement
- DHR valuation and score
- TMO stock overview
- TMO income statement
- TMO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.