Insulet vs Teleflex
PODD 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 PODD and TFX compare
Insulet is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Teleflex ($10.4B against $5.9B).
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (30.7% versus 29.4% for Insulet).
Insulet keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.3% compared with −45.8% at Teleflex.
Teleflex pays a dividend yielding 0.97%; Insulet does not pay one.
Insulet scores higher on the StockData Score (20 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 | PODD | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $10.4B | $5.9B |
| Share price | $149.68 | $139.77 |
| Change, 1 year | −52.7% | 9.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −51.4% | −60.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.88 | 0.85 |
| Employees | 5,400 | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 28.0× | – |
| P/S | 3.4× | 2.6× (better) |
| P/B | 7.3× | 2.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.5× (better) | 43.7× |
| P/FCF | 35.3× | 35.2× (better) |
| PEG | 0.10 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.8% | 2.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $243.94 | $36.02 |
| Margin of safety | 38.6% (better) | −288% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 29.4% | 30.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 24.5% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 59.0% (better) | −638% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 64.1% (better) | −645% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 103% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 71.1% (better) | 54.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.9% (better) | 2.0% |
| Net margin | 12.3% (better) | −45.8% |
| FCF margin | 9.6% (better) | 7.5% |
| Return on equity | 26.0% (better) | −28.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 21.9% (better) | 0.62% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 (better) | 0.97 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.67 (better) | 13.01 |
| Interest coverage | 8.8× (better) | 0.4× |
| Current ratio | 2.48 | 2.60 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 5.70 (better) | 1.47 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.97% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 4.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 0.48% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $2.3M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.8% | 9.6% |
Go deeper
- PODD stock overview
- PODD income statement
- PODD 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.