ABT vs MDT

For growth investors, Medtronic plc (MDT) is the stronger pick with 8.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 7% for Abbott Laboratories (ABT). Medtronic plc (MDT) offers the better valuation at 23. 9x trailing P/E (15. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Abbott Laboratories (ABT) a "Buy" — based on 41 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Medtronic plc (MDT) is the cheapest at 23.

9x versus Abbott Laboratories at 27. 9x. On forward P/E, Medtronic plc is actually cheaper at 15. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Medtronic plc wins at 2. 17x versus Abbott Laboratories's 2. 27x.

Over the past 5 years, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) delivered a total return of -8.

1%, compared to -18. 9% for Medtronic plc (MDT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ABT returned +186. 7% versus MDT's +30. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

04β versus Medtronic plc's 0. 16β — meaning MDT is approximately 333% more volatile than ABT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 29% versus 56% for Medtronic plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Medtronic plc (MDT) is pulling ahead at 8.

4% versus 5. 7% for Abbott Laboratories (ABT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Medtronic plc grew EPS 3. 3% year-over-year, compared to -51. 3% for Abbott Laboratories. Over a 3-year CAGR, MDT leads at 5. 2% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more profitable company, earning 14.

7% net margin versus 13. 2% for Medtronic plc — meaning it keeps 14. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABT leads at 18. 2% versus 17. 8% for MDT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MDT leads at 65. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Medtronic plc (MDT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 17x versus Abbott Laboratories's 2. 27x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Medtronic plc (MDT) trades at 15. 2x forward P/E versus 18. 8x for Abbott Laboratories — 3. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ABT: 17. 2% to $121. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Medtronic plc (MDT) offers the highest yield at 3. 2%, versus 2. 3% for Abbott Laboratories (ABT).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

04), 2. 3% yield, +186. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABT: +186. 7%, MDT: +30. 7%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: ABT is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MDT is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.