DHR vs ABT vs TMO vs BDX

For growth investors, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) is the stronger pick with 8.

2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 9% for Danaher Corporation (DHR). 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 Danaher Corporation (DHR) a "Buy" — based on 42 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 Danaher Corporation at 34. 9x. On forward P/E, Becton, Dickinson and Company is actually cheaper at 12. 3x — 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 Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) delivered a total return of +16.

9%, compared to -21. 1% for Danaher Corporation (DHR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TMO returned +229. 1% versus BDX's +80. 2%. 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 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 's 1. 10β — meaning TMO is approximately 341% more volatile than ABT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 32% versus 76% for Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) is pulling ahead at 8.

2% versus 2. 9% for Danaher Corporation (DHR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abbott Laboratories grew EPS 133. 6% year-over-year, compared to -4. 7% for Danaher Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, BDX leads at 5. 0% 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 7. 7% for Becton, Dickinson and Company — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DHR leads at 20. 9% versus 11. 8% for BDX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — DHR leads at 60. 9%, 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 Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) trades at 12. 3x forward P/E versus 20. 8x for Danaher Corporation — 8. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ABT: 47. 9% to $128. 71.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) offers the highest yield at 2. 7%, versus 0. 4% for Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (TMO).

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%, TMO: +229. 1%), 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: DHR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; TMO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BDX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. DHR, ABT, BDX pay a dividend while TMO does 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.