Koninklijke Philips vs Zimmer Biomet
PHG 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 PHG and ZBH compare
Zimmer Biomet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.6% versus −1.0% for Koninklijke Philips).
Zimmer Biomet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.5% compared with 5.0% at Koninklijke Philips.
Zimmer Biomet pays a dividend yielding 1.0%; Koninklijke Philips does not pay one.
Zimmer Biomet scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 5 for Koninklijke Philips), 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 | PHG | ZBH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | – | $18.0B |
| Share price | $27.12 | $94.52 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.66% | −5.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −43.2% | −33.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.99 | 0.69 |
| Employees | 25K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 23.0× |
| P/S | – | 2.1× |
| P/B | – | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.9× |
| P/FCF | – | 11.8× |
| PEG | – | 0.48 |
| FCF yield | – | 8.4% |
| Fair value | – | $124.06 |
| Margin of safety | – | 23.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −1.0% | 8.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.59% | 6.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −2.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 0.00% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 45.2% | 69.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 8.0% | 14.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 5.0% | 9.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 17.9% |
| Return on equity | 7.8% (better) | 6.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.5% (better) | 5.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.74 | 0.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.08 (better) | 3.06 |
| Interest coverage | 4.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.32 | 1.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | – | 2.46 |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 1.0% |
| Payout ratio | 36.9% | 23.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.2% |
| Shareholder yield | – | 5.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 5.3% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 19.3% | 0.18% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$1.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- PHG stock overview
- PHG income statement
- PHG 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.