EW vs ZBH

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

5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 2% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) offers the better valuation at 23. 5x trailing P/E (9. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) a "Buy" — based on 48 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, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

(ZBH) is the cheapest at 23. 5x versus Edwards Lifesciences Corporation at 45. 2x. On forward P/E, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 8x.

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

2%, compared to -47. 3% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EW returned +133. 4% versus ZBH's -17. 8%. 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), Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

(ZBH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 65β versus Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's 0. 65β — meaning EW is approximately 0% more volatile than ZBH 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 Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. — 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 7. 2% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. grew EPS -19. 9% year-over-year, compared to -73. 7% for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, ZBH leads at 5. 9% 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.

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) is the more profitable company, earning 17.

7% net margin versus 8. 6% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EW leads at 27. 0% versus 16. 5% for ZBH. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

(ZBH) trades at 9. 8x forward P/E versus 27. 5x for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation — 17. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ZBH: 17. 4% to $97. 90.

In this comparison, ZBH (1.

1% yield) pays a dividend. EW does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

(ZBH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 65), 1. 1% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ZBH: -17. 8%, EW: +133. 4%), 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.

ZBH pays a dividend while EW 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.