Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GMED scored 80.5, LMAT scored 74.4 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
GMED
Globus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
80.5
$74.65 · $10.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.1
GMED leads
LMAT
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
74.4
$80.69 · $1.8B
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 qualityLMAT78 / 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)
GMED
stronger →← stronger
LMAT
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
82
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
GMED is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GMED
LMAT
$746mC+
FCF
$74mC-
+16.7%B+
Rev
+13.5%B+
0.02A-
D/E
0.45B
19.1xB+
P/E
28.3xB
1.49B
PEG
2.11C
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
LMAT
34% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
36% above
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
+28%
1-yr DCF upside
-35%
+51%
5-yr DCF upside
-27%
+91%
10-yr DCF upside
-12%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
LMAT
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
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.
LMATLeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $80.69 · beta 0.47
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $1.8b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $118.01 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $107.00 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% 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 LMAT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.1 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 · LMAT 64.1GMED +18.3
QualityGMED 72.0 · LMAT 78.3LMAT +6.3
GrowthGMED 87.8 · LMAT 82.1GMED +5.7
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 LMAT the better stock?
GMED scores higher: GMED 80.5, LMAT 74.4 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 GMED and LMAT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GMED 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 GMED and LMAT 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.