COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
DHR vs DXCM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DHR scored 53.8, DXCM scored 77.3 — DXCM leads.
Compare another set
DHR
Danaher Corporation
53.8
$215.68 · $151.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.5
DXCM leads
DXCM
DexCom, Inc.
77.3
$90.57 · $34.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestDXCM35.8x
- Fastest growthDXCM+15.5%
- Strongest balance sheetDHR0.53
- Highest qualityDXCM91 / 100
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)
DHR
stronger →← stronger
DXCM
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
60
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
57
DXCM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DHR
DXCM
$5.5bB+
FCF
$1.4bC+
+4.6%C+
Rev
+15.5%B+
0.53B
D/E
0.53B
38.5xC+
P/E
35.8xC+
1.41B
PEG
1.74C+
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
DHR
DXCM
37% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
61% above
~14%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~24%/yr
-33%
1-yr DCF upside
-48%
-27%
5-yr DCF upside
-38%
-18%
10-yr DCF upside
-21%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DHR
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
DXCM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
DHRDanaher Corporation
Why now
Diagnostics & Research · market cap $151.6b. 11% off the 52-week high of $242.80. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $227.96 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 137% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $151.6b 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
Trailing P/E 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. ROE 8% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
DXCMDexCom, Inc.
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $34.2b. Trading near 52-week high of $92.59 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $94.12 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
Net margin 20% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 141% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.41 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 DHR and DXCM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.5 points in favor of DXCM. The widest single difference is Growth, where DXCM leads by 29.1 points.
- GrowthDHR 60.4 · DXCM 89.5DXCM +29.1
- QualityDHR 62.0 · DXCM 90.6DXCM +28.6
- ValueDHR 41.7 · DXCM 56.9DXCM +15.2
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.