Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RMD scored 75.9, GMED scored 80.5 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
RMD
ResMed Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
75.9
$230.05 · $32.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.6
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
CheapestGMED18.8x
Fastest growthGMED+16.7%
Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
Highest qualityRMD90 / 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)
RMD
stronger →← stronger
GMED
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
72
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
GMED is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RMD
GMED
$1.6bC+
FCF
$746mC+
+9.9%B
Rev
+16.7%B+
0.13B+
D/E
0.02A-
22.1xB+
P/E
18.8xA-
1.32B
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
RMD
GMED
7% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
0%
1-yr DCF upside
+28%
+8%
5-yr DCF upside
+51%
+21%
10-yr DCF upside
+91%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
RMD
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
RMDResMed Inc.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $230.05 · beta 0.75
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $32.4b. 17% off the 52-week high of $277.85. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $250.22 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 27% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 23% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 108% 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.
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
RMD leads GMED by 1.2 points (80.8 to 79.6). A contrarian could still prefer GMED, which trades about 14% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. All screen as growth-type names but sit in different sectors (Medical Devices versus Medical Instruments & Supplies), so their grades are relative to different peer sets.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 RMD and GMED diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.6 points in favor of GMED. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityRMD 90.2 · GMED 72.0RMD +18.2
GrowthRMD 71.8 · GMED 87.8GMED +16.0
ValueRMD 67.6 · GMED 82.4GMED +14.8
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 RMD the better stock?
GMED scores higher: GMED 80.5, RMD 75.9 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 RMD differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RMD leads by 18 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 GMED and RMD 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.