Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DXCM scored 81.5, GMED scored 80.5 — DXCM leads.
Compare another set
DXCM
DexCom, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
81.5
$84.11 · $31.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.0
DXCM leads
GMED
Globus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
80.5
$74.65 · $10.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGMED19.1x
Fastest growthGMED+16.7%
Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
Highest qualityDXCM90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGMED-34%
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)
DXCM
stronger →← stronger
GMED
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
DXCM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DXCM
GMED
$1.4bC+
FCF
$746mC+
+15.6%B+
Rev
+16.7%B+
0.53B
D/E
0.02A-
33.4xC+
P/E
19.1xB+
2.11C
PEG
1.49B
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
DXCM
GMED
57% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
-36%
5-yr DCF upside
+51%
-20%
10-yr DCF upside
+91%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DXCM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
DXCMDexCom, Inc.
Medical Devices · $84.11 · beta 1.48
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $31.7b. 9% off the 52-week high of $92.59. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $96.23 (implying +14% 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.
Risk
Beta 1.48 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 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
GMEDGlobus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · $74.65 · beta 0.96
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $10.0b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $101.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $100.92 (implying +35% 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 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 139% 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
GMED leads DXCM by 1 point (78.7 to 77.7), its sharpest advantage coming in P/E (grade B+).
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 DXCM and GMED diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.0 points in favor of DXCM. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityDXCM 90.4 · GMED 72.0DXCM +18.4
ValueDXCM 67.3 · GMED 82.4GMED +15.1
GrowthDXCM 89.1 · GMED 87.8level
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 DXCM or GMED the better stock?
DXCM scores higher: DXCM 81.5, GMED 80.5 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 DXCM and GMED differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where DXCM leads by 18 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 DXCM and GMED 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.