Embecta vs Insulet
EMBC and PODD 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 EMBC and PODD compare
Insulet is the larger company, worth 28 times as much as Embecta ($10.4B against $370M).
On earnings, Embecta is cheaper: it trades at 4.4× trailing earnings, against 24.4× for Insulet.
Insulet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.5% versus −7.6% for Embecta).
Insulet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.4% compared with 8.6% at Embecta.
Embecta pays a dividend yielding 4.9%; Insulet does not pay one.
Insulet scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 15 for Embecta), 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 | EMBC | PODD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $370M | $10.4B |
| Share price | $6.53 | $150.03 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.2% | −53.2% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −50.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 1,850 | 5,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Growth score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 4.4× (better) | 24.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 3.3× |
| P/B | – | 6.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.0× (better) | 15.6× |
| P/FCF | 2.2× (better) | 40.0× |
| PEG | – | 0.09 |
| FCF yield | 44.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| Fair value | $31.17 | $279.33 |
| Margin of safety | 79.1% (better) | 46.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.6% | 26.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.09% | 24.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.7% | 74.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 79.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.4% | 103% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.0% | 71.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | 18.4% |
| Net margin | 8.6% | 13.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 16.2% (better) | 8.2% |
| Return on equity | – | 28.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.2% (better) | 25.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.61 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.63 | 0.54 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 9.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.68 | 2.51 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.33 | 5.59 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.9% | – |
| Payout ratio | 31.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 2.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.9% (better) | 2.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | 0.48% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $521K | $2.3M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.7% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- EMBC stock overview
- EMBC income statement
- EMBC valuation and score
- PODD stock overview
- PODD income statement
- PODD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.