Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MDLN scored 49.8, GMED scored 80.5 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GMED's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MDLN's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
MDLN
Medline Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
49.8
$36.26 · $48.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.7
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 growthGMED+16.7%
Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
Highest qualityGMED72 / 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)
MDLN
stronger →← stronger
GMED
47
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
76
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
35
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
GMED is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MDLN
GMED
$1.3bC+
FCF
$746mC+
+11.5%B
Rev
+16.7%B+
0.66C+
D/E
0.02A-
90.6xD
P/E
19.1xB+
—
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
MDLN
GMED
118% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~28%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
-58%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
-54%
5-yr DCF upside
+51%
-48%
10-yr DCF upside
+91%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MDLN
Why this score
Short track record
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
MDLNMedline Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $36.26
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $48.8b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $50.88 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $44.42 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 90.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Net margin 4.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 MDLN and GMED diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.7 points in favor of GMED. The widest single difference is Value, where GMED leads by 47.5 points.
ValueMDLN 34.9 · GMED 82.4GMED +47.5
QualityMDLN 46.8 · GMED 72.0GMED +25.2
GrowthMDLN 75.7 · GMED 87.8GMED +12.1
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 MDLN the better stock?
GMED scores higher: GMED 80.5, MDLN 49.8 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 MDLN differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GMED leads by 48 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GMED leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GMED and MDLN 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.