Embecta vs Tandem Diabetes Care
EMBC 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 EMBC and TNDM compare
Tandem Diabetes Care is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as Embecta ($1.4B against $366M).
Tandem Diabetes Care grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus −7.6% for Embecta).
Embecta keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.6% compared with −4.6% at Tandem Diabetes Care.
Embecta pays a dividend yielding 5.0%; Tandem Diabetes Care does not pay one.
Embecta scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 5 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 | EMBC | TNDM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $366M | $1.4B |
| Share price | $6.46 | $20.07 |
| Change, 1 year | −55.4% | 11.1% |
| Change, 5 years | – | −85.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 1.23 |
| Employees | 1,850 | 500K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 4.4× | – |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | – | 10.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 2.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 45.0% (better) | −2.6% |
| Fair value | $30.51 | $24.98 |
| Margin of safety | 78.8% (better) | 19.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.6% | 6.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.09% | 15.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 4.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 2.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −26.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.0% (better) | 56.6% |
| Operating margin | 21.9% (better) | −2.4% |
| Net margin | 8.6% (better) | −4.6% |
| FCF margin | 16.2% (better) | −3.4% |
| Return on equity | – | −36.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.2% (better) | −9.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 4.47 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.63 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | −2.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.68 | 3.21 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.33 (better) | 0.69 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 31.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 3.9% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $521K (better) | −$36.9K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 10.7% | 23.5% |
Go deeper
- EMBC stock overview
- EMBC income statement
- EMBC valuation and score
- TNDM stock overview
- TNDM income statement
- TNDM valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.