Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DXCM scored 81.5, QGEN scored 55.9 — DXCM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. DXCM's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but QGEN's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
DXCM
DexCom, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
81.5
$84.11 · $31.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
25.6
DXCM leads
QGEN
Qiagen N.V.
Diagnostics & Research · Quality-Growth
55.9
$45.38 · $9.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestQGEN23.0x
Fastest growthDXCM+15.6%
Strongest balance sheetQGEN0.49
Highest qualityDXCM90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueQGEN-8%
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
QGEN
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
64
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
49
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
56
DXCM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DXCM
QGEN
$1.4bC+
FCF
$453mC
+15.6%B+
Rev
+5.7%C+
0.53B
D/E
0.49B
33.4xC+
P/E
23.0xB+
2.11C
PEG
1.19B+
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
QGEN
57% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
8% below
~23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~3%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
+6%
-36%
5-yr DCF upside
+8%
-20%
10-yr DCF upside
+13%
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
DXCM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
QGEN
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
QGENQiagen N.V.
Diagnostics & Research · $45.38 · beta 0.61
Why now
Diagnostics & Research · market cap $9.4b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $57.82 — deep drawdown territory. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $47.80 (implying +5% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 107% 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
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 DXCM and QGEN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 25.6 points in favor of DXCM. The widest single difference is Growth, where DXCM leads by 39.7 points.
GrowthDXCM 89.1 · QGEN 49.4DXCM +39.7
QualityDXCM 90.4 · QGEN 63.5DXCM +26.9
ValueDXCM 67.3 · QGEN 55.7DXCM +11.6
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 QGEN the better stock?
DXCM scores higher: DXCM 81.5, QGEN 55.9 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 QGEN differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where DXCM leads by 40 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. DXCM leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are DXCM and QGEN 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.