Globus Medical vs Revvity
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Globus Medical and Revvity side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Globus Medical is the larger business, with $2.9B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $2.9B for Revvity.
- Globus Medical grew revenue faster (16.7%, against 3.7%).
- Globus Medical kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (16.3% operating margin, against 12.5%).
- Globus Medical turned more of its sales into free cash flow (20.0% FCF margin, against 17.8%).
- Globus Medical earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (11.0%, against 3.3%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Revvity’s earnings: a P/E of 76.7x against 21.0x for Globus Medical.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Globus Medical
GMED
9/10
Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDA
Revvity
RVTY
1/10
Share count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | GMED FY25 | RVTY FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $11.2B | $17.9B |
| Revenue | $2.9B | $2.9B |
| Free cash flow | $589M | $509M |
| Net income | $538M | $241M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 16.7% | 3.7% |
| 5-year growth | 30.1% | −5.5% |
| Share count change | −0.6% | −5.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 67.4% | — |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 12.5% |
| Net margin | 18.3% | 8.5% |
| FCF margin | 20.0% | 17.8% |
| Return on capital | 11.0% | 3.3% |
| Return on equity | 12.3% | 3.2% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | −$556M | $2.3B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.7x | 3.0x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $301M | $854M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 21.0x | 76.7x |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 | 5 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.