Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BSX scored 71.4, RMD scored 75.9 — RMD leads.
Compare another set
BSX
Boston Scientific Corporation
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
71.4
$42.73 · $61.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.5
RMD leads
RMD
ResMed Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
75.9
$230.05 · $32.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBSX17.3x
Fastest growthBSX+19.9%
Strongest balance sheetRMD0.13
Highest qualityRMD90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueRMD-7%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
BSX
stronger →← stronger
RMD
66
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
78
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
72
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
BSX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BSX
RMD
$1.8bC+
FCF
$1.6bC+
+19.9%B+
Rev
+9.9%B
0.50B
D/E
0.13B+
17.3xA-
P/E
22.1xB+
0.59A-
PEG
1.32B
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
BSX
RMD
20% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
~14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~5%/yr
-28%
1-yr DCF upside
0%
-16%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
+5%
10-yr DCF upside
+21%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
BSX
Why this score
Buying back stock
RMD
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
BSXBoston Scientific Corporation
Medical Devices · $42.73 · beta 0.57
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $61.9b. Down 60% from 52-week high of $105.65 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.59 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $59.90 (implying +40% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 15% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $61.9b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Down 60% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
RMDResMed Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $230.05 · beta 0.75
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $32.4b. 17% off the 52-week high of $277.67. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $250.22 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 27% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 108% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model marginally favors RMD (79.4) over BSX (79.3), primarily due to RMD's significantly higher Quality pillar score of 90 compared to BSX's 70. However, a contrarian could prefer BSX given its substantial 24% discount to DCF fair value and the market's low implied growth expectation of negative 3% per year.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where BSX and RMD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.5 points in favor of RMD. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityBSX 65.8 · RMD 90.2RMD +24.4
GrowthBSX 78.3 · RMD 71.8BSX +6.5
ValueBSX 70.7 · RMD 67.6BSX +3.1
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is RMD or BSX the better stock?
RMD scores higher: RMD 75.9, BSX 71.4 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do RMD and BSX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RMD leads by 24 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are RMD and BSX scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.