COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
GMED vs LIVN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GMED scored 79.2, LIVN scored 69.8 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
GMED
Globus Medical, Inc.
79.2
$86.91 · $11.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.4
GMED 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
- CheapestGMED22.2x
- Fastest growthGMED+19.7%
- Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
- Highest qualityGMED73 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueGMED-9%
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
LIVN
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
61
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
67
GMED is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GMED
LIVN
$756mC+
FCF
$148mC
+19.7%B+
Rev
+12.4%B+
0.02A-
D/E
0.27B
22.2xB+
P/E
23.2xB+
1.49B
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
GMED
LIVN
9% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
62% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
+3%
1-yr DCF upside
-42%
+10%
5-yr DCF upside
-38%
+20%
10-yr DCF upside
-33%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
The companies
GMEDGlobus Medical, Inc.
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $11.7b. 14% off the 52-week high of $101.40. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $103.23 (implying +19% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 141% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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.
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 GMED and LIVN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.4 points in favor of GMED. The widest single difference is Quality, where GMED leads by 11.1 points.
- QualityGMED 72.6 · LIVN 61.5GMED +11.1
- GrowthGMED 93.4 · LIVN 82.4GMED +11.0
- ValueGMED 73.3 · LIVN 66.9GMED +6.4
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.