Globus Medical vs Teleflex
GMED 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 GMED and TFX compare
Globus Medical is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Teleflex ($10.5B against $5.9B).
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (30.7% versus 19.7% for Globus Medical).
Globus Medical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.0% compared with −45.8% at Teleflex.
Teleflex pays a dividend yielding 0.97%; Globus Medical does not pay one.
Globus Medical scores higher on the StockData Score (23 against 7 for Teleflex), 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 | GMED | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.5B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $78.05 | $139.77 |
| Change, 1 year | 27.0% | 9.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −0.46% | −60.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.95 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 6,000 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 23 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.0× | – |
| P/S | 3.3× | 2.6× (better) |
| P/B | 2.2× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.8× (better) | 43.7× |
| P/FCF | 13.9× (better) | 35.2× |
| PEG | 0.70 | – |
| FCF yield | 7.2% (better) | 2.8% |
| Fair value | $126.34 | $36.02 |
| Margin of safety | 38.2% (better) | −288% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.7% | 30.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 30.1% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 50.1% (better) | −638% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.4% (better) | −645% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 31.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 68.5% (better) | 54.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.3% (better) | 2.0% |
| Net margin | 17.0% (better) | −45.8% |
| FCF margin | 24.0% (better) | 7.5% |
| Return on equity | 11.8% (better) | −28.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 12.6% (better) | 0.62% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.97 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 13.01 |
| Interest coverage | – | 0.4× |
| Current ratio | 4.62 (better) | 2.60 |
| Altman Z-score | 10.46 (better) | 1.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.97% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.1% | 4.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.1% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 17.8% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.5M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.6% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- GMED stock overview
- GMED income statement
- GMED 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.