COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026

GMED vs STVN

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GMED scored 79.2, STVN scored 63.4 — GMED leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. GMED's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but STVN'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.
GMED
Globus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · Quality-Growth
79.2
$85.65 · $11.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.8
GMED leads
STVN
Stevanato Group S.p.A.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · Quality-Growth
63.4
$22.60 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
  • Fastest growthGMED+19.7%
  • Strongest balance sheetGMED0.02
  • Highest qualityGMED73 / 100
  • Largest discount to fair valueGMED-10%
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD79.2/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY72.6GROWTH93.4VALUE73.3
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD63.4/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY52.1GROWTH75.4VALUE75.6
GMEDSTVNQuality72.652.1Growth93.475.4Value73.375.6
FCFGMED$756mSTVN-$36m
RevGMED+19.7%STVN+7.4%
D/EGMED0.02STVN0.29
PEGGMED1.49STVN0.37
GMED
stronger →← stronger
STVN
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
52
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
75
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
76
GMED is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
GMED
STVN
$756mC+
FCF
-$36mF
+19.7%B+
Rev
+7.4%B
0.02A-
D/E
0.29B
21.9xB+
P/E
1.49B
PEG
0.37A
P/S
4.3xB
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.
GMED
STVN
10% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
~3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
+5%
1-yr DCF upside
+11%
5-yr DCF upside
+22%
10-yr DCF upside
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
GMED
No notable signals flagged.
STVN
Why this score
  • Foreign reporter (EUR)
GMEDGlobus Medical, Inc.
Medical Devices · $85.65 · beta 0.95
Why now
Medical Devices · market cap $11.5b. 16% off the 52-week high of $101.40. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $103.23 (implying +21% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 141% 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.
STVNStevanato Group S.p.A.
Medical Instruments & Supplies · $22.60 · beta 0.74
Why now
Medical Instruments & Supplies · market cap $6.2b. 19% off the 52-week high of $28.00. PEG 0.37 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $24.83 (implying +10% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$36m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 GMED and STVN diverge

On the headline score the gap is 15.8 points in favor of GMED. The widest single difference is Quality, where GMED leads by 20.5 points.

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.