Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ISRG scored 75.1, GMED scored 80.5 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
ISRG
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
75.1
$423.96 · $149.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.4
GMED 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 growthISRG+20.5%
Strongest balance sheetISRG0.00
Highest qualityISRG85 / 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)
ISRG
stronger →← stronger
GMED
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
90
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
ISRG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ISRG
GMED
$3.2bB
FCF
$746mC+
+20.5%A-
Rev
+16.7%B+
0.00A
D/E
0.02A-
48.6xC
P/E
19.1xB+
1.93C+
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
ISRG
GMED
215% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~44%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
-73%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
-68%
5-yr DCF upside
+51%
-59%
10-yr DCF upside
+91%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
The companies
ISRGIntuitive Surgical, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $423.96 · beta 1.46
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $149.8b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $603.88 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +21%, comfortably above the S&P median. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $477.47 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% 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 103% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.46 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 49x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 13.6x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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
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 ISRG and GMED diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.4 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.
ValueISRG 55.4 · GMED 82.4GMED +27.0
QualityISRG 84.9 · GMED 72.0ISRG +12.9
GrowthISRG 90.1 · 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 GMED or ISRG the better stock?
GMED scores higher: GMED 80.5, ISRG 75.1 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 ISRG differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GMED leads by 27 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 ISRG 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.