ResMed vs Teleflex
RMD 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 RMD and TFX compare
ResMed is the larger company, worth 5.1 times as much as Teleflex ($33.7B against $6.6B).
On earnings, Teleflex is cheaper: it trades at 18.8× trailing earnings, against 21.8× for ResMed.
Teleflex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.9% versus 9.0% for ResMed).
ResMed keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.8% compared with 13.5% at Teleflex.
Both pay dividends: ResMed yields 0.78% and Teleflex 0.88%.
ResMed scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 17 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 | RMD | TFX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $33.7B | $6.6B |
| Share price | $239.53 | $155.10 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.3% | 39.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.0% | −51.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.92 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 11K | 16K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 17 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.8× | 18.8× (better) |
| P/S | 5.9× | 2.9× (better) |
| P/B | 5.7× | 1.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.7× (better) | 18.4× |
| P/FCF | 20.9× (better) | 27.0× |
| PEG | 1.11 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.8% (better) | 3.7% |
| Fair value | $271.23 | $215.29 |
| Margin of safety | 11.7% | 28.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.0% | 20.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | −4.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.8% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 12.4% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 26.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 61.1% (better) | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 33.0% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net margin | 27.8% (better) | 13.5% |
| FCF margin | 28.1% (better) | 10.8% |
| Return on equity | 26.4% (better) | 8.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 29.7% (better) | 3.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 (better) | 0.46 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.41 | 2.82 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 2.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.65 (better) | 2.01 |
| Altman Z-score | 12.00 (better) | 2.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.78% | 0.88% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 22.4% | 19.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 4.2% | 8.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% | 9.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 71.1% | 113% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.73% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$19.6M | – |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 9.7% |
Go deeper
- RMD stock overview
- RMD income statement
- RMD 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.