COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
DXCM vs QGEN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DXCM scored 77.3, QGEN scored 68.3 — DXCM leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. DXCM's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but QGEN'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.
DXCM
DexCom, Inc.
77.3
$90.57 · $34.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.0
DXCM leads
QGEN
Qiagen N.V.
68.3
$43.74 · $9.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestQGEN22.2x
- Fastest growthDXCM+15.5%
- Strongest balance sheetQGEN0.49
- Highest qualityDXCM91 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueQGEN-14%
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
QGEN
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
63
57
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
78
DXCM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DXCM
QGEN
$1.4bC+
FCF
$453mC
+15.5%B+
Rev
+5.7%C+
0.53B
D/E
0.49B
35.8xC+
P/E
22.2xB+
1.74C+
PEG
1.10B+
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
QGEN
61% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
14% below
~24%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
-48%
1-yr DCF upside
+10%
-38%
5-yr DCF upside
+16%
-21%
10-yr DCF upside
+26%
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
QGEN
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
DXCMDexCom, Inc.
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $34.2b. Trading near 52-week high of $92.59 — 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 +4% 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 2% 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.
QGENQiagen N.V.
Why now
Diagnostics & Research · market cap $9.0b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $57.82 — deep drawdown territory. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $46.07 (implying +5% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 107% 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.
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 QGEN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.0 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.
- GrowthDXCM 89.5 · QGEN 63.1DXCM +26.4
- QualityDXCM 90.6 · QGEN 64.7DXCM +25.9
- ValueDXCM 56.9 · QGEN 78.0QGEN +21.1
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.