Intuitive Surgical vs Zimmer Biomet
ISRG and ZBH 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 ISRG and ZBH compare
Intuitive Surgical is the larger company, worth 8.5 times as much as Zimmer Biomet ($153B against $18.0B).
On earnings, Zimmer Biomet is cheaper: it trades at 23.0× trailing earnings, against 49.5× for Intuitive Surgical.
Intuitive Surgical grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.7% versus 8.6% for Zimmer Biomet).
Intuitive Surgical keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.4% compared with 9.5% at Zimmer Biomet.
Zimmer Biomet pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Intuitive Surgical does not pay one.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ISRG | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $153B | $18.0B |
| Share price | $432.01 | $94.52 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.6% | −5.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 18.4% | −33.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.33 | 0.69 |
| Employees | 17K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 17 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 49.5× | 23.0× (better) |
| P/S | 13.8× | 2.1× (better) |
| P/B | 8.4× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 42.7× | 10.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 47.4× | 11.8× (better) |
| PEG | 1.70 | 0.48 (better) |
| FCF yield | 2.1% | 8.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $350.05 | $124.06 |
| Margin of safety | −23.4% | 23.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.7% (better) | 8.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 18.2% (better) | 6.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.4% (better) | −2.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 21.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.7% | 69.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 31.3% (better) | 14.2% |
| Net margin | 28.4% (better) | 9.5% |
| FCF margin | 29.2% (better) | 17.9% |
| Return on equity | 17.4% (better) | 6.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 22.5% (better) | 5.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.06 |
| Current ratio | 4.96 (better) | 1.69 |
| Altman Z-score | 37.48 (better) | 2.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | 4.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 86.9% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.47% | 0.18% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$57.3M | −$1.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- ISRG stock overview
- ISRG income statement
- ISRG valuation and score
- ZBH stock overview
- ZBH income statement
- ZBH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.