Medical - Instruments & Supplies
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Instruments & Supplies
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Instruments & Supplies | Medical - Devices | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Instruments & Supplies |
| Market Cap | $7.13B | $6.66B | $22.83B | $855M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $763M | $3.46B | $3.77B | $597M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $51M | $-12M | $449M | $-178M |
| Gross Margin | 51.5% | 45.3% | 55.0% | 44.6% |
| Operating Margin | 8.7% | 4.9% | 17.1% | -26.4% |
| Forward P/E | 64.3x | 20.7x | 24.4x | 23.7x |
| Total Debt | $690M | $2.04B | $1.41B | $111M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $566M | $299M | $588M | $280M |
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repligen Corporation (RGEN) | 100 | 96.5 | -3.5% |
| Bruker Corporation (BRKR) | 100 | 101.0 | +1.0% |
| Waters Corporation (WAT) | 100 | 175.3 | +75.3% |
| Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) | 100 | 46.5 | -53.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RGEN is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 16.4%, EPS growth 287.0%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.7%
- 369.1% 10Y total return vs WAT's 162.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.76, Low D/E 32.8%, current ratio 8.37x
- Beta 1.76, current ratio 8.37x
BRKR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and dividends.
- Lower P/E (20.7x vs 24.4x)
- 0.3% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend
- +7.8% vs AZTA's -26.5%
WAT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 1.07
- 11.9% margin vs AZTA's -29.9%
- Beta 1.07 vs AZTA's 2.17
- 4.6% ROA vs AZTA's -8.8%, ROIC 20.3% vs -0.5%
AZTA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.4% revenue growth vs BRKR's 2.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (20.7x vs 24.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 11.9% margin vs AZTA's -29.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.07 vs AZTA's 2.17 | |
| Dividends | 0.3% yield; the other 3 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +7.8% vs AZTA's -26.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.6% ROA vs AZTA's -8.8%, ROIC 20.3% vs -0.5% |
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
WAT leads in 5 of 6 categories
AZTA leads 1 • RGEN leads 0 • BRKR leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WAT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WAT is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.8B annually — 6.3x AZTA's $597M. WAT is the more profitable business, keeping 11.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AZTA's -29.9%. On growth, WAT holds the edge at +91.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $763M | $3.5B | $3.8B | $597M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $155M | $397M | $953M | -$115M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $51M | -$12M | $449M | -$178M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $104M | $51M | $264M | $29M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +51.5% | +45.3% | +55.0% | +44.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +8.7% | +4.9% | +17.1% | -26.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +6.7% | -0.3% | +11.9% | -29.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | +1.5% | +7.0% | +4.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +14.8% | +2.7% | +91.5% | +1.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +50.0% | -79.2% | -142.9% | -3.0% |
Valuation Metrics
AZTA leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 32.6x trailing earnings, WAT trades at a 78% valuation discount to RGEN's 147.0x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, AZTA's 13.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than RGEN's 52.4x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $7.1B | $6.7B | $22.8B | $855M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.3B | $8.4B | $23.7B | $687M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 147.01x | -291.53x | 32.55x | -15.22x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 64.26x | 20.68x | 24.36x | 23.68x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 6.29x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 52.45x | 18.41x | 21.51x | 13.75x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 9.66x | 1.94x | 7.21x | 1.44x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.40x | 2.64x | 8.17x | 0.49x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 75.94x | 153.73x | 42.30x | 22.32x |
Profitability & Efficiency
WAT leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WAT delivers a 8.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $8 in annual profit, vs $-11 for AZTA. AZTA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BRKR's 0.81x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RGEN scores 7/9 vs WAT's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.5% | -0.5% | +8.0% | -10.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.8% | -0.2% | +4.6% | -8.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +2.2% | +4.4% | +20.3% | -0.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.2% | +5.0% | +18.5% | -0.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.33x | 0.81x | 0.55x | 0.06x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $124M | $1.7B | $820M | -$169M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $566M | $299M | $588M | $280M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $690M | $2.0B | $1.4B | $111M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.64x | 1.14x | 6.72x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
WAT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in WAT five years ago would be worth $11,133 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,903 for AZTA. Over the past 12 months, BRKR leads with a +7.8% total return vs AZTA's -26.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WAT at 5.7% vs AZTA's -25.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -23.1% | -9.0% | -8.3% | -44.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -0.4% | +7.8% | +1.4% | -26.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.3% | -42.5% | +18.1% | -59.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -32.7% | -35.5% | +11.3% | -81.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +369.1% | +67.1% | +162.0% | +123.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -6.9% | -16.9% | +5.7% | -25.8% |
Risk & Volatility
WAT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
WAT is the less volatile stock with a 1.07 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AZTA's 2.17 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. WAT currently trades 84.6% from its 52-week high vs AZTA's 44.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.76x | 1.59x | 1.07x | 2.17x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $175.77 | $56.22 | $414.15 | $41.73 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $109.52 | $28.53 | $275.05 | $17.11 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +71.9% | +77.8% | +84.6% | +44.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.1 | 64.8 | 64.9 | 31.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 905K | 1.9M | 999K | 1.0M |
Analyst Outlook
WAT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RGEN as "Buy", BRKR as "Buy", WAT as "Hold", AZTA as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 140.5% upside for AZTA (target: $45) vs 14.9% for WAT (target: $403). BRKR is the only dividend payer here at 0.34% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $168.00 | $52.13 | $402.57 | $44.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 23 | 32 | 34 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.3% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.15 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.2% | +0.1% | 0.0% |
WAT leads in 5 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). AZTA leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
RGEN vs BRKR vs WAT vs AZTA: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is the stronger pick with 16.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 1% for Bruker Corporation (BRKR). Waters Corporation (WAT) offers the better valuation at 32. 6x trailing P/E (24. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Repligen Corporation (RGEN) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
On trailing P/E, Waters Corporation (WAT) is the cheapest at 32.
6x versus Repligen Corporation at 147. 0x. On forward P/E, Bruker Corporation is actually cheaper at 20. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
Over the past 5 years, Waters Corporation (WAT) delivered a total return of +11.
3%, compared to -81. 0% for Azenta, Inc. (AZTA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RGEN returned +369. 1% versus BRKR's +67. 1%. 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 — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Waters Corporation (WAT) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
07β versus Azenta, Inc. 's 2. 17β — meaning AZTA is approximately 103% more volatile than WAT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 81% for Bruker Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Repligen Corporation (RGEN) is pulling ahead at 16.
4% versus 2. 1% for Bruker Corporation (BRKR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Repligen Corporation grew EPS 287. 0% year-over-year, compared to -119. 7% for Bruker Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, BRKR leads at 10. 7% 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 — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
Waters Corporation (WAT) is the more profitable company, earning 20.
3% net margin versus -9. 4% for Azenta, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WAT leads at 28. 2% versus -1. 9% for AZTA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WAT leads at 57. 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.
07Is RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Bruker Corporation (BRKR) trades at 20.
7x forward P/E versus 64. 3x for Repligen Corporation — 43. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AZTA: 140. 5% to $44. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA?
In this comparison, BRKR (0.
3% yield) pays a dividend. RGEN, WAT, AZTA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is RGEN or BRKR or WAT or AZTA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Waters Corporation (WAT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.
07), +162. 0% 10Y return). Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a higher beta of 2. 17 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WAT: +162. 0%, AZTA: +123. 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.
10What are the main differences between RGEN and BRKR and WAT and AZTA?
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: RGEN is a small-cap high-growth stock; BRKR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; WAT is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; AZTA is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.