LeMaitre Vascular vs PROCEPT BioRobotics
LMAT and PRCT 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 LMAT and PRCT compare
LeMaitre Vascular is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as PROCEPT BioRobotics ($1.8B against $1.3B).
PROCEPT BioRobotics grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 11.8% for LeMaitre Vascular).
LeMaitre Vascular keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.5% compared with −32.6% at PROCEPT BioRobotics.
LeMaitre Vascular pays a dividend yielding 1.2%; PROCEPT BioRobotics does not pay one.
LeMaitre Vascular scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 9 for PROCEPT BioRobotics), 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 | LMAT | PRCT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.8B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $79.29 | $23.34 |
| Change, 1 year | −9.7% | −24.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 52.8% | −42.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 1.30 |
| Employees | 655 | 888 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.8× | – |
| P/S | 6.7× | 3.8× (better) |
| P/B | 4.2× | 4.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.7× | – |
| P/FCF | 27.1× | – |
| PEG | 0.73 | – |
| FCF yield | 3.7% (better) | −6.4% |
| Fair value | $95.89 | $48.08 |
| Margin of safety | 17.3% | 51.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.8% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.0% | 109% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 18.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 19.4% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 72.0% (better) | 64.7% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% (better) | −33.6% |
| Net margin | 23.5% (better) | −32.6% |
| FCF margin | 24.9% (better) | −24.1% |
| Return on equity | 15.6% (better) | −32.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 148% (better) | −62.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.16 |
| Interest coverage | 14.4× (better) | −34.7× |
| Current ratio | 14.60 (better) | 5.89 |
| Altman Z-score | 6.97 (better) | 4.18 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 34.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 14 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 16.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.09% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100.0% | 95.8% |
| Held by insiders | 9.0% | 4.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$30.0M | $10.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 8.0% | 14.4% |
Go deeper
- LMAT stock overview
- LMAT income statement
- LMAT valuation and score
- PRCT stock overview
- PRCT income statement
- PRCT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.