Medical - Instruments & Supplies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Medical - Devices
Medical - Devices
Medical - Devices
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Instruments & Supplies | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices |
| Market Cap | $773K | $224M | $23.50B | $151.30B | $11.26B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $42M | $4.82B | $43.84B | $2.90B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-27M | $-88M | $930M | $13.98B | $303M |
| Gross Margin | — | 52.0% | 61.8% | 54.0% | 71.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | -204.4% | 21.4% | 17.8% | 17.5% |
| Forward P/E | 0.0x | — | 24.5x | 15.9x | 25.2x |
| Total Debt | $267K | $41M | $1.39B | $15.28B | $1.05B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6M | $41M | $918M | $7.62B | $716M |
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GlucoTrack, Inc. (GCTK) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| Senseonics Holdings… (SENS) | 100 | 70.8 | -29.2% |
| DexCom, Inc. (DXCM) | 100 | 63.0 | -37.0% |
| Abbott Laboratories (ABT) | 100 | 95.5 | -4.5% |
| Insulet Corporation (PODD) | 100 | 85.1 | -14.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GCTK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value is your priority.
- Lower P/E (0.0x vs 15.9x)
SENS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 56.9%, EPS growth 33.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 29.1%
- 56.9% revenue growth vs GCTK's -122.1%
DXCM is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- -26.9% vs GCTK's -91.5%
ABT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.25, yield 2.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.25, Low D/E 31.9%, current ratio 1.67x
- 31.9% margin vs SENS's -208.1%
- Beta 0.25 vs SENS's 2.07, lower leverage
PODD is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 439.0% 10Y total return vs ABT's 173.7%
- PEG 0.24 vs DXCM's 2.34
- Beta 0.68, current ratio 2.78x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 56.9% revenue growth vs GCTK's -122.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (0.0x vs 15.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.9% margin vs SENS's -208.1% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.25 vs SENS's 2.07, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 11-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -26.9% vs GCTK's -91.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.6% ROA vs GCTK's -262.2% |
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABT leads in 3 of 6 categories
DXCM leads 1 • GCTK leads 0 • SENS leads 0 • PODD leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — DXCM and PODD each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABT and GCTK operate at a comparable scale, with $43.8B and $0 in trailing revenue. ABT is the more profitable business, keeping 31.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to SENS's -2.1%. On growth, SENS holds the edge at +87.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $42M | $4.8B | $43.8B | $2.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$15M | -$84M | $1.2B | $10.9B | $582M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$27M | -$88M | $930M | $14.0B | $303M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$14M | -$81M | $1.4B | $6.9B | $416M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +52.0% | +61.8% | +54.0% | +71.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | -2.0% | +21.4% | +17.8% | +17.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | -2.1% | +19.3% | +31.9% | +10.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -190.6% | +29.7% | +15.8% | +14.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +87.2% | +15.0% | +6.9% | +33.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +41.3% | -77.5% | +88.9% | 0.0% | +160.0% |
Valuation Metrics
ABT leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 0.0x trailing earnings, GCTK trades at a 100% valuation discount to PODD's 46.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABT offers better value at 0.38x vs DXCM's 2.78x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $773,493 | $224M | $23.5B | $151.3B | $11.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$5M | $225M | $24.0B | $159.0B | $11.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 0.01x | -3.23x | 29.14x | 11.39x | 46.09x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 24.47x | 15.87x | 25.23x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.78x | 0.38x | 0.45x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 20.60x | 15.83x | 19.76x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 6.35x | 5.04x | 3.61x | 4.16x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.66x | 8.99x | 3.18x | 7.61x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 21.82x | 23.82x | 29.81x |
Profitability & Efficiency
DXCM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
DXCM delivers a 33.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $34 in annual profit, vs $-4 for GCTK. ABT carries lower financial leverage with a 0.32x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PODD's 0.69x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DXCM scores 8/9 vs GCTK's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -3.9% | -131.5% | +33.8% | +27.3% | +21.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -2.6% | -67.9% | +13.4% | +16.6% | +9.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | -3.2% | +18.7% | +9.9% | +20.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -3.6% | -83.6% | +23.5% | +10.8% | +18.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.68x | 0.51x | 0.32x | 0.69x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$5M | $822,000 | $472M | $7.7B | $335M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6M | $41M | $918M | $7.6B | $716M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $267,000 | $41M | $1.4B | $15.3B | $1.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -13.49x | -4.38x | 57.21x | 19.22x | 7.39x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ABT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABT five years ago would be worth $8,209 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $0 for GCTK. Over the past 12 months, DXCM leads with a -26.9% total return vs GCTK's -91.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ABT at -5.4% vs GCTK's -93.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -77.8% | -9.0% | -8.5% | -28.9% | -43.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -91.5% | -61.2% | -26.9% | -33.2% | -39.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -60.1% | -49.3% | -15.4% | -49.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -85.8% | -32.1% | -17.9% | -31.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -91.5% | +290.2% | +173.7% | +439.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -93.2% | -26.4% | -20.3% | -5.4% | -20.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — DXCM and ABT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABT is the less volatile stock with a 0.25 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SENS's 2.07 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. DXCM currently trades 67.7% from its 52-week high vs GCTK's 5.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.37x | 2.06x | 1.06x | 0.22x | 0.68x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $15.90 | $14.96 | $89.98 | $139.06 | $354.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.62 | $4.79 | $54.11 | $86.15 | $148.31 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +5.4% | +35.8% | +67.7% | +62.6% | +45.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.7 | 34.5 | 43.6 | 22.9 | 22.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5.3M | 625K | 3.9M | 10.5M | 1.1M |
Analyst Outlook
ABT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SENS as "Buy", DXCM as "Buy", ABT as "Buy", PODD as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 111.3% upside for PODD (target: $339) vs 32.8% for DXCM (target: $81). ABT is the only dividend payer here at 2.52% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $9.00 | $80.88 | $128.71 | $339.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 16 | 52 | 41 | 50 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +2.5% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | — | — | 11 | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $2.19 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +2.1% | +0.9% | +0.5% |
ABT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). DXCM leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
GCTK vs SENS vs DXCM vs ABT vs PODD: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Senseonics Holdings, Inc.
(SENS) is the stronger pick with 56. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 6% for Abbott Laboratories (ABT). GlucoTrack, Inc. (GCTK) offers the better valuation at 0. 0x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Senseonics Holdings, Inc. (SENS) a "Buy" — based on 16 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.
02Which has the better valuation — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
On trailing P/E, GlucoTrack, Inc.
(GCTK) is the cheapest at 0. 0x versus Insulet Corporation at 46. 1x. On forward P/E, Abbott Laboratories is actually cheaper at 15. 9x — 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: Insulet Corporation wins at 0. 24x versus DexCom, Inc. 's 2. 34x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
Over the past 5 years, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) delivered a total return of -17.
9%, compared to -100. 0% for GlucoTrack, Inc. (GCTK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PODD returned +439. 0% versus GCTK's -100. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
22β versus Senseonics Holdings, Inc. 's 2. 06β — meaning SENS is approximately 856% 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 69% for Insulet Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Senseonics Holdings, Inc.
(SENS) is pulling ahead at 56. 9% versus 4. 6% for Abbott Laboratories (ABT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GlucoTrack, Inc. grew EPS 258. 6% year-over-year, compared to -39. 8% for Insulet Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, SENS leads at 29. 1% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus -196. 0% for Senseonics Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DXCM leads at 19. 6% versus -193. 8% for SENS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PODD leads at 71. 6%, 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.
07Is GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD more undervalued right now?
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, Insulet Corporation (PODD) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 24x versus DexCom, Inc. 's 2. 34x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) trades at 15. 9x forward P/E versus 25. 2x for Insulet Corporation — 9. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PODD: 111. 3% to $339. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD?
In this comparison, ABT (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. GCTK, SENS, DXCM, PODD do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GCTK or SENS or DXCM or ABT or PODD better for a retirement portfolio?
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.
22), 2. 5% yield, +166. 6% 10Y return). Senseonics Holdings, Inc. (SENS) carries a higher beta of 2. 06 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABT: +166. 6%, SENS: -92. 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.
10What are the main differences between GCTK and SENS and DXCM and ABT and PODD?
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: GCTK is a small-cap deep-value stock; SENS is a small-cap high-growth stock; DXCM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PODD is a mid-cap high-growth stock. ABT pays a dividend while GCTK, SENS, DXCM, PODD 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.