COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
DXCM vs LIVN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DXCM scored 77.5, LIVN scored 69.8 — DXCM leads.
Compare another set
DXCM
DexCom, Inc.
77.5
$92.34 · $34.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.7
DXCM leads
LIVN
LivaNova PLC
69.8
$78.74 · $4.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestLIVN23.2x
- Fastest growthDXCM+15.5%
- Strongest balance sheetLIVN0.27
- Highest qualityDXCM91 / 100
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
LIVN
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
58
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
67
DXCM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DXCM
LIVN
$1.4bC+
FCF
$148mC
+15.5%B+
Rev
+12.4%B+
0.53B
D/E
0.27B
36.5xC+
P/E
23.2xB+
1.70C+
PEG
0.93B+
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
LIVN
64% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
62% above
~24%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
-49%
1-yr DCF upside
-42%
-39%
5-yr DCF upside
-38%
-22%
10-yr DCF upside
-33%
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
LIVN
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
DXCMDexCom, Inc.
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $34.8b. Trading near 52-week high of $92.56 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $94.12 (implying +2% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.41 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 36x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
LIVNLivaNova PLC
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $4.3b. 8% off the 52-week high of $85.76. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $88.80 (implying +13% upside).
Moat
Net margin 13% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 LIVN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.7 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 90.6 · LIVN 61.5DXCM +29.1
- ValueDXCM 57.6 · LIVN 66.9LIVN +9.3
- GrowthDXCM 89.5 · LIVN 82.4DXCM +7.1
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.