Haemonetics vs Envista
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Haemonetics and Envista side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Envista is the larger business, with $2.7B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $1.3B for Haemonetics, about 2.0 times as much.
- Envista grew revenue faster (8.3%, against −2.0%).
- Haemonetics kept more of each dollar of sales as operating profit (11.8% operating margin, against 8.0%).
- Haemonetics turned more of its sales into free cash flow (19.5% FCF margin, against 8.5%).
- Haemonetics earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (6.7%, against 3.2%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Haemonetics’s earnings: a P/E of 57.3x against 40.8x for Envista.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 11 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Haemonetics
HAE
8/11
5-year growthGross marginOperating marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityShare count change
Envista
NVST
2/11
Revenue growthNet debt / EBITDA
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | HAE FY26 | NVST FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $5.4B | $3.9B |
| Revenue | $1.3B | $2.7B |
| Free cash flow | $260M | $230M |
| Net income | $97.3M | $47.0M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | −2.0% | 8.3% |
| 5-year growth | 8.9% | 7.1% |
| Share count change | −6.7% | −1.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.0% | 54.7% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 8.0% |
| Net margin | 7.3% | 1.7% |
| FCF margin | 19.5% | 8.5% |
| Return on capital | 6.7% | 3.2% |
| Return on equity | 12.0% | 1.6% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $994M | $237M |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.7x | 0.7x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $175M | $167M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 57.3x | 40.8x |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 7 |
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.