Medical - Devices
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Devices
Medical - Devices
Drug Manufacturers - General
Medical - Devices
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Medical - Devices | Drug Manufacturers - General | Medical - Devices |
| Market Cap | $1.27B | $11.26B | $23.50B | $358.42B | $99.94B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.03B | $2.90B | $4.82B | $61.16B | $35.48B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-95M | $303M | $930M | $4.23B | $4.61B |
| Gross Margin | 54.9% | 71.0% | 61.8% | 70.2% | 61.9% |
| Operating Margin | -7.9% | 17.5% | 21.4% | 26.7% | 17.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 25.2x | 24.5x | 14.3x | 14.1x |
| Total Debt | $444M | $1.05B | $1.39B | $69.07B | $28.52B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $91M | $716M | $918M | $5.23B | $2.22B |
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tandem Diabetes Car… (TNDM) | 100 | 22.2 | -77.8% |
| Insulet Corporation (PODD) | 100 | 85.1 | -14.9% |
| DexCom, Inc. (DXCM) | 100 | 64.4 | -35.6% |
| AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) | 100 | 218.7 | +118.7% |
| Medtronic plc (MDT) | 100 | 79.1 | -20.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, TNDM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PODD ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.24 vs MDT's 36.00
- 30.7% revenue growth vs MDT's 3.6%
DXCM is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 15.6%, EPS growth 47.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 17.0%
- 19.3% margin vs TNDM's -9.2%
ABBV is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 295.5% 10Y total return vs PODD's 439.0%
- Beta 0.34 vs TNDM's 1.45
- +11.3% vs PODD's -39.3%
MDT carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 36 yrs, beta 0.47, yield 3.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.47, Low D/E 59.1%, current ratio 1.85x
- Beta 0.47, yield 3.6%, current ratio 1.85x
- Lower P/E (14.1x vs 14.3x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 30.7% revenue growth vs MDT's 3.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.1x vs 14.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.3% margin vs TNDM's -9.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.34 vs TNDM's 1.45 | |
| Dividends | 3.6% yield, 36-year raise streak, vs ABBV's 3.2%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +11.3% vs PODD's -39.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 175.8% ROA vs TNDM's -10.0%, ROIC 6.0% vs -10.0% |
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ABBV leads in 3 of 6 categories
MDT leads 2 • DXCM leads 1 • TNDM leads 0 • PODD leads 0
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ABBV is the larger business by revenue, generating $61.2B annually — 59.5x TNDM's $1.0B. DXCM is the more profitable business, keeping 19.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TNDM's -9.2%. On growth, PODD holds the edge at +33.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.0B | $2.9B | $4.8B | $61.2B | $35.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$68M | $582M | $1.2B | $24.5B | $9.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$95M | $303M | $930M | $4.2B | $4.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$4M | $416M | $1.4B | $18.7B | $5.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +54.9% | +71.0% | +61.8% | +70.2% | +61.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -7.9% | +17.5% | +21.4% | +26.7% | +17.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -9.2% | +10.4% | +19.3% | +6.9% | +13.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -0.4% | +14.3% | +29.7% | +30.6% | +15.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.5% | +33.9% | +15.0% | +10.0% | +8.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +84.8% | +160.0% | +88.9% | +57.4% | -11.9% |
Valuation Metrics
MDT leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 21.6x trailing earnings, MDT trades at a 75% valuation discount to ABBV's 85.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), PODD offers better value at 0.45x vs MDT's 36.00x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.3B | $11.3B | $23.5B | $358.4B | $99.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.6B | $11.6B | $24.0B | $422.3B | $126.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -6.08x | 46.09x | 29.14x | 85.50x | 21.60x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 25.23x | 24.47x | 14.28x | 14.13x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.45x | 2.78x | — | 36.00x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 19.76x | 20.60x | 14.96x | 14.32x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.25x | 4.16x | 5.04x | 5.86x | 2.98x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 8.01x | 7.61x | 8.99x | — | 2.08x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 29.81x | 21.82x | 20.12x | 19.28x |
Profitability & Efficiency
DXCM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABBV delivers a 62.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $62 in annual profit, vs $-68 for TNDM. DXCM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.51x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TNDM's 2.86x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), DXCM scores 8/9 vs TNDM's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -68.3% | +21.4% | +33.8% | +62.1% | +9.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -10.0% | +9.6% | +13.4% | +3.1% | +175.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -10.0% | +20.1% | +18.7% | +23.9% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -11.5% | +18.7% | +23.5% | +21.5% | +7.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.86x | 0.69x | 0.51x | — | 0.59x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $354M | $335M | $472M | $63.8B | $26.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $91M | $716M | $918M | $5.2B | $2.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $444M | $1.1B | $1.4B | $69.1B | $28.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -15.99x | 7.39x | 57.21x | 3.28x | 9.08x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ABBV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ABBV five years ago would be worth $20,131 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $2,195 for TNDM. Over the past 12 months, ABBV leads with a +11.3% total return vs PODD's -39.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ABBV at 14.6% vs PODD's -20.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -14.3% | -43.3% | -8.5% | -10.1% | -18.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -17.0% | -39.3% | -26.9% | +11.3% | -2.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.8% | -49.7% | -49.3% | +50.4% | -4.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -78.0% | -31.5% | -32.1% | +101.3% | -27.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -75.4% | +439.0% | +290.2% | +295.5% | +26.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -18.0% | -20.5% | -20.3% | +14.6% | -1.4% |
Risk & Volatility
ABBV leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ABBV is the less volatile stock with a 0.34 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TNDM's 1.45 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ABBV currently trades 82.8% from its 52-week high vs PODD's 45.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.45x | 0.68x | 1.06x | 0.34x | 0.47x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $29.65 | $354.88 | $89.98 | $244.81 | $106.33 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $9.98 | $148.31 | $54.11 | $176.57 | $77.16 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +62.3% | +45.2% | +67.7% | +82.8% | +73.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.1 | 22.4 | 43.6 | 46.8 | 27.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.8M | 1.1M | 3.9M | 5.8M | 7.8M |
Analyst Outlook
MDT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TNDM as "Buy", PODD as "Buy", DXCM as "Buy", ABBV as "Buy", MDT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 111.3% upside for PODD (target: $339) vs 26.6% for ABBV (target: $257). For income investors, MDT offers the higher dividend yield at 3.57% vs ABBV's 3.24%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $31.62 | $339.00 | $80.88 | $256.64 | $109.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 39 | 50 | 52 | 41 | 49 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | — | +3.2% | +3.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — | — | 13 | 36 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | — | $6.57 | $2.78 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.5% | +2.1% | +0.3% | +3.2% |
ABBV leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). MDT leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook).
TNDM vs PODD vs DXCM vs ABBV vs MDT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Insulet Corporation (PODD) is the stronger pick with 30.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 6% for Medtronic plc (MDT). Medtronic plc (MDT) offers the better valuation at 21. 6x trailing P/E (14. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (TNDM) a "Buy" — based on 39 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 — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
On trailing P/E, Medtronic plc (MDT) is the cheapest at 21.
6x versus AbbVie Inc. at 85. 5x. On forward P/E, Medtronic plc is actually cheaper at 14. 1x. 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 Medtronic plc's 36. 00x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
Over the past 5 years, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) delivered a total return of +101. 3%, compared to -78. 0% for Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (TNDM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PODD returned +439. 0% versus TNDM's -75. 4%. 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 — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 34β versus Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning TNDM is approximately 330% more volatile than ABBV relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, DexCom, Inc. (DXCM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 51% versus 3% for Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Insulet Corporation (PODD) is pulling ahead at 30.
7% versus 3. 6% for Medtronic plc (MDT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: DexCom, Inc. grew EPS 47. 2% year-over-year, compared to -106. 8% for Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, PODD leads at 27. 5% 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 — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
DexCom, Inc.
(DXCM) is the more profitable company, earning 17. 9% net margin versus -20. 2% for Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. — meaning it keeps 17. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ABBV leads at 32. 8% versus -7. 7% for TNDM. 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 TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT 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 Medtronic plc's 36. 00x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Medtronic plc (MDT) trades at 14. 1x forward P/E versus 25. 2x for Insulet Corporation — 11. 1x 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 — TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT?
In this comparison, MDT (3.
6% yield), ABBV (3. 2% yield) pay a dividend. TNDM, PODD, DXCM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TNDM or PODD or DXCM or ABBV or MDT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AbbVie Inc.
(ABBV) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 34), 3. 2% yield, +295. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ABBV: +295. 5%, TNDM: -75. 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 TNDM and PODD and DXCM and ABBV and MDT?
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: TNDM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PODD is a mid-cap high-growth stock; DXCM is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ABBV is a large-cap income-oriented stock; MDT is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. ABBV, MDT pay a dividend while TNDM, PODD, DXCM 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.