DexCom vs Insulet
DXCM and PODD 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 DXCM and PODD compare
DexCom is the larger company, worth 2.9 times as much as Insulet ($31.1B against $10.6B).
On earnings, Insulet is cheaper: it trades at 24.8× trailing earnings, against 32.8× for DexCom.
Insulet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.5% versus 13.0% for DexCom).
DexCom keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.4% compared with 13.4% at Insulet.
DexCom scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 21 for Insulet), 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 | DXCM | PODD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $31.1B | $10.6B |
| Share price | $83.33 | $152.48 |
| Change, 1 year | 39.8% | −54.7% |
| Change, 5 years | −48.0% | −49.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.20 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 11K | 5,400 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 21 |
| Valuation score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.8× | 24.8× (better) |
| P/S | 6.1× | 3.3× (better) |
| P/B | 12.3× | 6.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.1× | 15.8× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.3× (better) | 40.7× |
| PEG | 0.90 | 0.09 (better) |
| FCF yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| Fair value | $118.43 | $277.62 |
| Margin of safety | 29.6% | 45.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.0% | 26.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.3% | 24.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 37.5% | 74.2% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 41.9% | 79.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.5% | 103% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 63.4% | 71.9% (better) |
| Operating margin | 24.0% (better) | 18.4% |
| Net margin | 19.4% (better) | 13.4% |
| FCF margin | 21.5% (better) | 8.2% |
| Return on equity | 37.7% (better) | 28.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 78.0% (better) | 25.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.61 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.54 |
| Interest coverage | 91.3× (better) | 9.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.74 | 2.51 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.53 (better) | 5.64 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | −0.08% | 2.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −0.08% | 2.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 104% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.52% | 0.48% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$12.5M | $2.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.3% | 7.7% |
Go deeper
- DXCM stock overview
- DXCM income statement
- DXCM valuation and score
- PODD stock overview
- PODD income statement
- PODD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.