Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LMAT scored 74.4, ISRG scored 75.1 — ISRG leads.
Compare another set
LMAT
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
74.4
$80.69 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.7
ISRG leads
ISRG
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
75.1
$423.96 · $149.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLMAT28.3x
Fastest growthISRG+20.5%
Strongest balance sheetISRG0.00
Highest qualityISRG85 / 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)
LMAT
stronger →← stronger
ISRG
78
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
90
64
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
55
ISRG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LMAT
ISRG
$74mC-
FCF
$3.2bB
+13.5%B+
Rev
+20.5%A-
0.45B
D/E
0.00A
28.3xB
P/E
48.6xC
2.11C
PEG
1.93C+
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
LMAT
ISRG
36% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
215% above
~17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~44%/yr
-35%
1-yr DCF upside
-73%
-27%
5-yr DCF upside
-68%
-12%
10-yr DCF upside
-59%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LMAT
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
ISRG
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
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.
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.
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 LMAT and ISRG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.7 points in favor of ISRG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueLMAT 64.1 · ISRG 55.4LMAT +8.7
GrowthLMAT 82.1 · ISRG 90.1ISRG +8.0
QualityLMAT 78.3 · ISRG 84.9ISRG +6.6
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 ISRG or LMAT the better stock?
ISRG scores higher: ISRG 75.1, 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 ISRG and LMAT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where LMAT leads by 9 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 ISRG 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.