Medical - Devices
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Medical - Devices
Medical - Instruments & Supplies
Medical - Devices
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Medical - Instruments & Supplies | Medical - Devices |
| Market Cap | $513K | $54M | $222M | $469M | $151.30B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3M | $9M | $69M | $307M | $43.84B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-4M | $-49M | $9M | $-28M | $13.98B |
| Gross Margin | 30.0% | 29.5% | 78.2% | 53.7% | 54.0% |
| Operating Margin | -351.8% | -5.5% | 16.7% | -9.4% | 17.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | — | 24.4x | — | 15.9x |
| Total Debt | $116K | $2M | $198K | $0.00 | $15.28B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $752K | $9M | $15M | $56M | $7.62B |
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | Mar 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| NanoVibronix, Inc. (NAOV) | 100 | 0.0 | -100.0% |
| InspireMD, Inc. (NSPR) | 100 | 12.5 | -87.5% |
| Electromed, Inc. (ELMD) | 100 | 207.1 | +107.1% |
| AngioDynamics, Inc. (ANGO) | 100 | 101.5 | +1.5% |
| Abbott Laboratories (ABT) | 100 | 115.1 | +15.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NAOV lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
NSPR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Rev growth 28.1%, EPS growth 0.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 20.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.85, Low D/E 4.0%, current ratio 5.74x
- Beta 0.85, current ratio 5.74x
- 28.1% revenue growth vs ANGO's -3.8%
ELMD is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 482.6% 10Y total return vs ABT's 173.7%
ANGO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +28.5% vs NAOV's -95.7%
ABT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.25, yield 2.5%
- PEG 0.53 vs ELMD's 1.90
- Better valuation composite
- 31.9% margin vs NSPR's -5.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 28.1% revenue growth vs ANGO's -3.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.9% margin vs NSPR's -5.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.25 vs NAOV's 1.49 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 11-year raise streak; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +28.5% vs NAOV's -95.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.6% ROA vs NSPR's -88.7%, ROIC 9.9% vs -108.3% |
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABT leads in 2 of 6 categories
ELMD leads 1 • NAOV leads 0 • NSPR leads 0 • ANGO leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABT leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABT is the larger business by revenue, generating $43.8B annually — 16328.9x NAOV's $3M. ABT is the more profitable business, keeping 31.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NSPR's -5.4%. On growth, NAOV holds the edge at +92.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $3M | $9M | $69M | $307M | $43.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$9M | -$49M | $12M | -$5M | $10.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$4M | -$49M | $9M | -$28M | $14.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | -$37M | $9M | -$9M | $6.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +30.0% | +29.5% | +78.2% | +53.7% | +54.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.5% | -5.5% | +16.7% | -9.4% | +17.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -133.0% | -5.4% | +13.1% | -9.0% | +31.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.7% | -4.1% | +13.4% | -3.0% | +15.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +92.0% | +61.6% | +16.3% | +9.0% | +6.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +129.2% | +26.3% | +45.5% | +42.3% | 0.0% |
Valuation Metrics
ABT leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.4x trailing earnings, ABT trades at a 64% valuation discount to ELMD's 31.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABT offers better value at 0.38x vs ELMD's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $512,711 | $54M | $222M | $469M | $151.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$123,289 | $48M | $207M | $413M | $159.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.14x | -1.53x | 31.23x | -13.58x | 11.39x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | — | 24.42x | — | 15.87x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 2.43x | — | 0.38x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — | 19.14x | — | 15.83x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.20x | 6.06x | 3.47x | 1.60x | 3.61x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.82x | 1.54x | 5.42x | 2.52x | 3.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 20.06x | — | 23.82x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — ELMD and ABT each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABT delivers a 27.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $-116 for NSPR. ELMD carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ABT's 0.32x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ELMD scores 7/9 vs NAOV's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -8.4% | -116.2% | +19.8% | -15.7% | +27.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.6% | -88.7% | +16.4% | -10.3% | +16.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -7.7% | -108.3% | +25.6% | -22.9% | +9.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -139.7% | -100.4% | +22.0% | -18.6% | +10.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.19x | 0.04x | 0.00x | — | 0.32x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$636,000 | -$7M | -$15M | -$56M | $7.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $752,000 | $9M | $15M | $56M | $7.6B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $116,000 | $2M | $198,000 | $0 | $15.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -23.76x | -373.27x | — | -258.19x | 19.22x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ELMD leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ELMD five years ago would be worth $27,805 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $9 for NAOV. Over the past 12 months, ANGO leads with a +28.5% total return vs NAOV's -95.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ELMD at 34.7% vs NAOV's -83.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -22.4% | -37.6% | -1.9% | -11.1% | -28.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -95.7% | -54.5% | +22.1% | +28.5% | -33.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.5% | -21.6% | +144.6% | +25.8% | -15.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | -77.0% | +178.1% | -53.3% | -17.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -100.0% | -100.0% | +482.6% | -9.2% | +173.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -83.3% | -7.8% | +34.7% | +7.9% | -5.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ELMD 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 NAOV's 1.49 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ELMD currently trades 87.4% from its 52-week high vs NAOV's 4.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.49x | 0.85x | 1.03x | 1.32x | 0.25x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.50 | $2.93 | $30.73 | $13.99 | $139.06 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.99 | $1.02 | $17.73 | $8.36 | $86.15 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +4.3% | +39.6% | +87.4% | +80.6% | +62.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 45.1 | 34.4 | 56.5 | 54.0 | 22.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 335K | 98K | 41K | 395K | 10.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ELMD as "Buy", ANGO as "Hold", ABT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 47.9% upside for ABT (target: $129) vs 41.5% for ELMD (target: $38). 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 | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | $38.00 | $16.50 | $128.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | 4 | 11 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | — | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | — | $2.19 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +4.5% | +0.4% | +0.9% |
ABT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). ELMD leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
NAOV vs NSPR vs ELMD vs ANGO vs ABT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, InspireMD, Inc.
(NSPR) is the stronger pick with 28. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 8% for AngioDynamics, Inc. (ANGO). 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 Electromed, Inc. (ELMD) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
On trailing P/E, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the cheapest at 11.
4x versus Electromed, Inc. at 31. 2x. On forward P/E, Abbott Laboratories is actually cheaper at 15. 9x. 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 Electromed, Inc. 's 1. 90x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
Over the past 5 years, Electromed, Inc.
(ELMD) delivered a total return of +178. 1%, compared to -99. 9% for NanoVibronix, Inc. (NAOV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ELMD returned +482. 6% versus NSPR'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 — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
25β versus NanoVibronix, Inc. 's 1. 49β — meaning NAOV is approximately 501% more volatile than ABT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Electromed, Inc. (ELMD) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 32% for Abbott Laboratories — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), InspireMD, Inc.
(NSPR) is pulling ahead at 28. 1% versus -3. 8% for AngioDynamics, Inc. (ANGO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abbott Laboratories grew EPS 133. 6% year-over-year, compared to 0. 0% for InspireMD, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NSPR leads at 20. 2% 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 — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus -543. 3% for InspireMD, Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABT leads at 16. 3% versus -547. 0% for NSPR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ELMD 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.
07Is NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT 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, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 53x versus Electromed, Inc. 's 1. 90x. 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 24. 4x for Electromed, Inc. — 8. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ABT: 47. 9% to $128. 71.
08Which pays a better dividend — NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT?
In this comparison, ABT (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. NAOV, NSPR, ELMD, ANGO do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NAOV or NSPR or ELMD or ANGO or ABT 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.
25), 2. 5% yield, +173. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABT: +173. 7%, NAOV: -100. 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 NAOV and NSPR and ELMD and ANGO and ABT?
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: NAOV is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NSPR is a small-cap high-growth stock; ELMD is a small-cap high-growth stock; ANGO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. ABT pays a dividend while NAOV, NSPR, ELMD, ANGO 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.