COO vs EW vs MDT vs ABT

For growth investors, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) is the stronger pick with 11.

5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 6% for Medtronic plc (MDT). Abbott Laboratories (ABT) offers the better valuation at 11. 4x trailing P/E (15. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Cooper Companies, Inc. (COO) a "Buy" — based on 24 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, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the cheapest at 11.

4x versus Edwards Lifesciences Corporation at 45. 2x. On forward P/E, The Cooper Companies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 13. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Abbott Laboratories wins at 0. 53x versus Medtronic plc's 36. 00x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) delivered a total return of -10.

2%, compared to -39. 5% for The Cooper Companies, Inc. (COO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ABT returned +173. 7% versus MDT's +26. 5%. 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.

25β versus The Cooper Companies, Inc. 's 0. 93β — meaning COO is approximately 275% more volatile than ABT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 59% for Medtronic plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) is pulling ahead at 11.

5% versus 3. 6% for Medtronic plc (MDT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abbott Laboratories grew EPS 133. 6% year-over-year, compared to -73. 7% for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, COO leads at 7. 3% 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 31.

9% net margin versus 9. 2% for The Cooper Companies, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EW leads at 27. 0% versus 16. 3% for ABT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EW leads at 78. 1%, 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, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 53x versus Medtronic plc's 36. 00x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Cooper Companies, Inc. (COO) trades at 13. 2x forward P/E versus 27. 5x for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation — 14. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COO: 53. 6% to $93. 86.

In this comparison, MDT (3.

6% yield), ABT (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. COO, EW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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.

25), 2. 5% yield, +173. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABT: +173. 7%, COO: +57. 9%), 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: COO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; EW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MDT is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. MDT, ABT pay a dividend while COO, EW do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.