Embecta vs Teleflex
EMBC 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 EMBC and TFX compare
Teleflex is the larger company, worth 18 times as much as Embecta ($6.5B against $364M).
On earnings, Embecta is cheaper: it trades at 4.4× trailing earnings, against 18.6× for Teleflex.
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus −7.6% for Embecta).
Teleflex keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 8.6% at Embecta.
Both pay dividends: Embecta yields 5.0% and Teleflex 0.89%.
Teleflex scores higher on the StockData Score (17 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 | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $364M | $6.5B |
| Share price | $6.43 | $153.15 |
| Change, 1 year | −54.8% | 36.4% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −52.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 1,850 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 6 | 6 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 4.4× (better) | 18.6× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | – | 1.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.0× (better) | 18.2× |
| P/FCF | 2.2× (better) | 26.7× |
| FCF yield | 45.2% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $30.51 | $215.83 |
| Margin of safety | 78.9% (better) | 29.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.6% | 20.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.09% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.0% (better) | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net margin | 8.6% | 13.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 16.2% (better) | 10.8% |
| Return on equity | – | 8.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.2% (better) | 3.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.46 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.63 | 2.82 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.68 | 2.01 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.33 | 2.01 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.0% (better) | 0.89% |
| Payout ratio | 31.1% | 19.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 8.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% | 9.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $521K | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.7% | 9.7% |
Go deeper
- EMBC stock overview
- EMBC income statement
- EMBC valuation and score
- TFX stock overview
- TFX income statement
- TFX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.