MASI vs HOLX vs BDX vs NTRA

For growth investors, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is the stronger pick with 35. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -27. 1% for Masimo Corporation (MASI). Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) offers the better valuation at 26. 3x trailing P/E (12. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Masimo Corporation (MASI) a "Buy" — based on 23 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, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) is the cheapest at 26.

3x versus Hologic, Inc. at 30. 5x. On forward P/E, Becton, Dickinson and Company is actually cheaper at 12. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) delivered a total return of +115. 9%, compared to -20. 4% for Masimo Corporation (MASI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NTRA returned +20. 9% 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), Hologic, Inc.

(HOLX) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 41β versus Natera, Inc. 's 1. 26β — meaning NTRA is approximately 206% more volatile than HOLX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Natera, Inc. (NTRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 78% for Masimo Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Natera, Inc.

(NTRA) is pulling ahead at 35. 9% versus -27. 1% for Masimo Corporation (MASI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Masimo Corporation grew EPS 51. 0% year-over-year, compared to -25. 0% for Hologic, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NTRA leads at 41. 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.

Hologic, Inc.

(HOLX) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 8% net margin versus -9. 9% for Masimo Corporation — meaning it keeps 13. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MASI leads at 20. 5% versus -13. 4% for NTRA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NTRA leads at 64. 8%, 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, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) trades at 12.

3x forward P/E versus 32. 5x for Masimo Corporation — 20. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NTRA: 19. 4% to $262. 50.

In this comparison, BDX (2.

7% yield) pays a dividend. MASI, HOLX, NTRA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

66), 2. 7% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BDX: +80. 2%, NTRA: +20. 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: MASI is a small-cap quality compounder stock; HOLX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BDX is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; NTRA is a mid-cap high-growth stock. BDX pays a dividend while MASI, HOLX, NTRA 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.