ESTA vs ABT vs MDT vs BSX

For growth investors, Establishment Labs Holdings Inc.

(ESTA) is the stronger pick with 27. 1% 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 Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. (ESTA) a "Buy" — based on 14 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 Boston Scientific Corporation at 29. 2x. On forward P/E, Medtronic plc is actually cheaper at 14. 1x — 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, Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) delivered a total return of +31.

2%, compared to -27. 7% for Medtronic plc (MDT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ESTA returned +191. 0% 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 Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. 's 1. 30β — meaning ESTA is approximately 425% 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 11% for Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Establishment Labs Holdings Inc.

(ESTA) is pulling ahead at 27. 1% 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 30. 8% for Medtronic plc. Over a 3-year CAGR, BSX leads at 16. 5% 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 -24. 2% for Establishment Labs Holdings Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BSX leads at 19. 8% versus -18. 5% for ESTA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ESTA leads at 69. 3%, 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, Medtronic plc (MDT) trades at 14. 1x forward P/E versus 16. 7x for Boston Scientific Corporation — 2. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BSX: 61. 4% to $91. 33.

In this comparison, MDT (3.

6% yield), ABT (2. 5% yield) pay a dividend. ESTA, BSX 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%, ESTA: +191. 0%), 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: ESTA is a small-cap high-growth stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; MDT is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; BSX is a mid-cap high-growth stock. ABT, MDT pay a dividend while ESTA, BSX 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.