DexCom vs Tandem Diabetes Care
DXCM and TNDM 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 DXCM and TNDM compare
DexCom is the larger company, worth 23 times as much as Tandem Diabetes Care ($31.1B against $1.3B).
DexCom grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.0% versus 4.0% for Tandem Diabetes Care).
DexCom keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.4% compared with −6.1% at Tandem Diabetes Care.
DexCom scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 6 for Tandem Diabetes Care), 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 | DXCM | TNDM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $31.1B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $82.29 | $19.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.7% | 26.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −48.2% | −85.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.20 | 1.19 |
| Employees | 11K | 500K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.4× | – |
| P/S | 6.1× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 12.2× | 10.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.1× | – |
| P/FCF | 28.3× | – |
| PEG | 0.89 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.5% (better) | −2.0% |
| Fair value | $117.75 | $24.93 |
| Margin of safety | 30.1% (better) | 23.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.0% (better) | 4.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.3% (better) | 15.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 37.5% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 41.9% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.4% (better) | 56.0% |
| Operating margin | 24.0% (better) | −4.4% |
| Net margin | 19.4% (better) | −6.1% |
| FCF margin | 21.5% (better) | −2.6% |
| Return on equity | 37.7% (better) | −48.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 78.0% (better) | −17.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 4.62 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 91.3× (better) | −5.2× |
| Current ratio | 1.74 | 3.18 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.53 (better) | 0.55 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | −0.08% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −0.08% | 0.00% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 0.52% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.6M | −$4.4K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.7% | 19.4% |
Go deeper
- DXCM stock overview
- DXCM income statement
- DXCM valuation and score
- TNDM stock overview
- TNDM income statement
- TNDM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.