Medical - Equipment & Services
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
PFSA vs ABT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
PFSA vs ABT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Equipment & Services | Medical - Devices |
| Market Cap | $599K | $149.97B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $43.84B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-41M | $13.98B |
| Gross Margin | — | 54.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | 17.8% |
| Forward P/E | — | 15.7x |
| Total Debt | $48M | $15.28B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $191K | $7.62B |
Quick Verdict: PFSA vs ABT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
In this particular matchup, PFSA is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
ABT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.25, yield 2.5%
- Rev growth 4.6%, EPS growth 133.6%, 3Y rev CAGR -0.9%
- 171.8% 10Y total return vs PFSA's -99.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 4.6% revenue growth vs PFSA's -44.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.9% margin vs PFSA's -144.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.25 vs PFSA's 3.08 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield; 11-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -33.3% vs PFSA's -99.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.6% ROA vs PFSA's -9.6% |
PFSA vs ABT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
PFSA vs ABT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PFSA leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABT and PFSA operate at a comparable scale, with $43.8B and $0 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $43.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$31M | $10.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$41M | $14.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$12M | $6.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +54.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +17.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +31.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +15.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +6.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +45.7% | 0.0% |
Valuation Metrics
PFSA leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $599,214 | $150.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $49M | $157.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.02x | 11.29x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.73x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.38x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 15.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 3.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.15x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 23.61x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABT leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ABT scores 7/9 vs PFSA's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | +27.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -9.6% | +16.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +9.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | +10.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.32x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $48M | $7.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $191,000 | $7.6B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $48M | $15.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.77x | 19.22x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ABT leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABT five years ago would be worth $8,156 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $26 for PFSA. Over the past 12 months, ABT leads with a -33.3% total return vs PFSA's -99.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ABT at -5.7% vs PFSA's -86.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -93.5% | -29.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -99.7% | -33.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | -16.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | -18.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.7% | +171.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -86.3% | -5.7% |
Risk & Volatility
ABT leads this category, winning 2 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 PFSA's 3.08 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ABT currently trades 62.0% from its 52-week high vs PFSA's 0.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 3.08x | 0.25x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $412.50 | $139.06 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.10 | $86.15 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +0.1% | +62.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 38.5 | 24.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5.9M | 10.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Insufficient data to determine a leader in this category.
Analyst Outlook
ABT is the only dividend payer here at 2.54% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $128.71 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 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% | +0.9% |
ABT leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). PFSA leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics).
PFSA vs ABT: Frequently Asked Questions
8 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PFSA or ABT a better buy right now?
Abbott Laboratories (ABT) offers the better valuation at 11.
3x trailing P/E (15. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Abbott Laboratories (ABT) a "Buy" — based on 41 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 is the better long-term investment — PFSA or ABT?
Over the past 5 years, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) delivered a total return of -18.
4%, compared to -99. 7% for Profusa, Inc. Common Stock (PFSA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ABT returned +171. 8% versus PFSA's -99. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — PFSA or ABT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
25β versus Profusa, Inc. Common Stock's 3. 08β — meaning PFSA is approximately 1142% more volatile than ABT relative to the S&P 500.
04Which is growing faster — PFSA or ABT?
On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abbott Laboratories grew EPS 133.
6% year-over-year, compared to 9. 7% for Profusa, Inc. Common Stock. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — PFSA or ABT?
Abbott Laboratories (ABT) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus 0. 0% for Profusa, Inc. Common Stock — 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 0. 0% for PFSA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ABT leads at 50. 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.
06Which pays a better dividend — PFSA or ABT?
In this comparison, ABT (2.
5% yield) pays a dividend. PFSA does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
07Is PFSA 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, +171. 8% 10Y return). Profusa, Inc. Common Stock (PFSA) carries a higher beta of 3. 08 — 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: +171. 8%, PFSA: -99. 7%), 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.
08What are the main differences between PFSA 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: PFSA is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ABT is a mid-cap deep-value stock. ABT pays a dividend while PFSA 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.