COMPARE · Data as of August 28, 2026
PODD vs QGEN
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PODD scored 78.1, QGEN scored 68.3 — PODD leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. PODD'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.
PODD
Insulet Corporation
78.1
$145.60 · $10.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.8
PODD 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 growthPODD+29.4%
- Strongest balance sheetQGEN0.49
- Highest qualityPODD73 / 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)
PODD
stronger →← stronger
QGEN
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
63
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
78
PODD is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PODD
QGEN
$294mC
FCF
$453mC
+29.4%A-
Rev
+5.7%C+
0.67C+
D/E
0.49B
27.3xB
P/E
22.2xB+
1.44B
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
PODD
QGEN
79% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
14% below
~27%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
-54%
1-yr DCF upside
+10%
-44%
5-yr DCF upside
+16%
-26%
10-yr DCF upside
+26%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
PODD
No notable signals flagged.
QGEN
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
PODDInsulet Corporation
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $10.1b. Down 59% from 52-week high of $354.88 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +29% — in hypergrowth territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $171.91 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 59% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 PODD and QGEN diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.8 points in favor of PODD. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthPODD 95.3 · QGEN 63.1PODD +32.2
- ValuePODD 68.2 · QGEN 78.0QGEN +9.8
- QualityPODD 73.2 · QGEN 64.7PODD +8.5
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.