Haemonetics vs Teleflex
HAE 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 HAE and TFX compare
Teleflex is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Haemonetics ($6.6B against $5.6B).
On earnings, Teleflex is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 54.9× for Haemonetics.
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus 4.1% for Haemonetics).
Teleflex keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 7.5% at Haemonetics.
Teleflex pays a dividend yielding 0.88%; Haemonetics does not pay one.
Teleflex scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 7 for Haemonetics), 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 | HAE | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.6B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $122.94 | $155.10 |
| Change, 1 year | 68.1% | 39.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | −51.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.64 | 0.82 |
| Employees | – | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 54.9× | 18.8× (better) |
| P/S | 4.0× | 2.9× (better) |
| P/B | 6.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.5× | 18.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 18.8× (better) | 27.0× |
| FCF yield | 5.3% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $75.19 | $215.29 |
| Margin of safety | −63.5% | 28.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.1% | 20.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.9% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −38.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −34.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.6% (better) | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 12.8% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net margin | 7.5% | 13.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 21.6% (better) | 10.8% |
| Return on equity | 11.9% (better) | 8.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.3% (better) | 3.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.25 | 0.46 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.01 | 2.82 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.84 (better) | 2.01 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.52 (better) | 2.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.88% |
| Payout ratio | – | 19.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 8.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 9.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 109% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 1.8% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $0 | – |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.1% | 9.7% |
Go deeper
- HAE stock overview
- HAE income statement
- HAE 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.