Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GMED scored 80.5, IRTC scored 31.3 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
GMED
Globus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
80.5
$74.65 · $10.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
49.2
GMED leads
IRTC
iRhythm Holdings, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
31.3
$106.70 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthIRTC+26.2%
Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
Highest qualityGMED72 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueGMED-34%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
GMED
stronger →← stronger
IRTC
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
22
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
92
82
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
15
GMED is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GMED
IRTC
$746mC+
FCF
$39mC-
+16.7%B+
Rev
+26.2%A-
0.02A-
D/E
3.91D
19.1xB+
P/E
—
1.49B
PEG
—
—
P/S
4.3xB
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
GMED
IRTC
34% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
432% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
+28%
1-yr DCF upside
-85%
+51%
5-yr DCF upside
-81%
+91%
10-yr DCF upside
-73%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
IRTC
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
IRTCiRhythm Holdings, Inc.
Medical Devices · $106.70 · beta 1.46
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $3.5b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $212.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $173.93 (implying +63% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
D/E 3.91 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Currently unprofitable (margin -1.7%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 50% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 GMED and IRTC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 49.2 points in favor of GMED. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueGMED 82.4 · IRTC 15.5GMED +66.9
QualityGMED 72.0 · IRTC 21.5GMED +50.5
GrowthGMED 87.8 · IRTC 91.8IRTC +4.0
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 GMED or IRTC the better stock?
GMED scores higher: GMED 80.5, IRTC 31.3 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 GMED and IRTC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GMED leads by 67 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 GMED and IRTC 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.