Medical - Healthcare Information Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
Medical - Devices
Medical - Diagnostics & Research
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Healthcare Information Services | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Diagnostics & Research | Medical - Devices | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| Market Cap | $1.20B | $176.36B | $124.33B | $498M | $21.07B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $443M | $45.20B | $24.78B | $160M | $4.39B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-78M | $6.86B | $3.69B | $-546M | $853M |
| Gross Margin | 68.3% | 39.4% | 60.7% | 28.2% | 67.1% |
| Operating Margin | -14.8% | 17.8% | 21.0% | -346.1% | 20.9% |
| Forward P/E | 51.1x | 19.1x | 20.8x | — | 26.8x |
| Total Debt | $152M | $40.85B | $18.42B | $759M | $2.55B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $9.86B | $4.62B | $64M | $1.42B |
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GeneDx Holdings Cor… (WGS) | 100 | 12.0 | -88.0% |
| Thermo Fisher Scien… (TMO) | 100 | 102.1 | +2.1% |
| Danaher Corporation (DHR) | 100 | 88.2 | -11.8% |
| Pacific Biosciences… (PACB) | 100 | 10.4 | -89.6% |
| Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) | 100 | 44.3 | -55.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WGS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 40.0%, EPS growth 62.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 22.1%
- 40.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8%
TMO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 229.1% 10Y total return vs DHR's 219.3%
- 0.4% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs DHR's 0.7%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
DHR is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.94, yield 0.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.94, Low D/E 35.1%, current ratio 1.87x
- Beta 0.94, yield 0.7%, current ratio 1.87x
- Beta 0.94 vs PACB's 2.43, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, PACB doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ILMN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 6.33 vs DHR's 34.35
- Better valuation composite
- 19.4% margin vs PACB's -341.5%
- +81.7% vs WGS's -29.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 40.0% revenue growth vs ILMN's -0.8% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.4% margin vs PACB's -341.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.94 vs PACB's 2.43, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.4% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs DHR's 0.7%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +81.7% vs WGS's -29.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs PACB's -66.8%, ROIC 16.8% vs -45.8% |
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ILMN leads in 1 of 6 categories
WGS leads 0 • TMO leads 0 • DHR leads 0 • PACB leads 0 • 5 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — WGS and ILMN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TMO is the larger business by revenue, generating $45.2B annually — 282.5x PACB's $160M. ILMN is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PACB's -3.4%. On growth, WGS holds the edge at +17.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $443M | $45.2B | $24.8B | $160M | $4.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$46M | $10.5B | $7.2B | -$169M | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$78M | $6.9B | $3.7B | -$546M | $853M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$29M | $6.7B | $5.3B | -$124M | $989M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +68.3% | +39.4% | +60.7% | +28.2% | +67.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -14.8% | +17.8% | +21.0% | -3.5% | +20.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -17.6% | +15.2% | +14.9% | -3.4% | +19.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -6.5% | +14.9% | +21.4% | -77.4% | +22.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +17.4% | +6.2% | +3.7% | +13.8% | +4.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -8.4% | +11.3% | +9.8% | — | +6.1% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — WGS and DHR and ILMN each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 25.5x trailing earnings, ILMN trades at a 27% valuation discount to DHR's 34.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ILMN offers better value at 6.01x vs DHR's 34.35x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $176.4B | $124.3B | $498M | $21.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.2B | $207.4B | $138.1B | $1.2B | $22.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -55.48x | 26.75x | 34.85x | -0.91x | 25.45x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 51.10x | 19.11x | 20.82x | — | 26.77x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 12.67x | 34.35x | — | 6.01x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 93.08x | 19.04x | 18.21x | — | 19.58x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.81x | 3.96x | 5.06x | 3.11x | 4.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.53x | 3.34x | 2.38x | 92.53x | 7.95x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 84.31x | 28.02x | 23.64x | — | 22.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ILMN delivers a 32.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-11 for PACB. DHR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.35x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PACB's 141.98x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ILMN scores 8/9 vs PACB's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -27.5% | +13.2% | +7.1% | -11.2% | +32.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -15.3% | +6.4% | +4.5% | -66.8% | +13.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -2.8% | +7.5% | +5.9% | -45.8% | +16.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.9% | +9.1% | +7.0% | -58.0% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.49x | 0.76x | 0.35x | 141.98x | 0.94x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $47M | $31.0B | $13.8B | $696M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $9.9B | $4.6B | $64M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $152M | $40.9B | $18.4B | $759M | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -11.13x | 5.89x | 18.13x | -77.95x | 12.09x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — WGS and TMO and ILMN each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TMO five years ago would be worth $10,283 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $663 for PACB. Over the past 12 months, ILMN leads with a +81.7% total return vs WGS's -29.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors WGS at 66.0% vs PACB's -48.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -69.4% | -19.8% | -23.6% | -10.3% | +3.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -29.4% | +16.8% | -8.3% | +46.0% | +81.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +357.6% | -11.7% | -15.5% | -86.5% | -27.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -89.8% | +2.8% | -21.1% | -93.4% | -62.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -87.5% | +229.1% | +219.3% | -81.3% | +0.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +66.0% | -4.0% | -5.5% | -48.7% | -10.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — DHR and ILMN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
DHR is the less volatile stock with a 0.94 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PACB's 2.43 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ILMN currently trades 89.2% from its 52-week high vs WGS's 23.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.89x | 1.10x | 0.94x | 2.43x | 1.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $170.87 | $643.99 | $242.80 | $2.73 | $155.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $32.21 | $385.46 | $172.06 | $0.85 | $73.86 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +23.7% | +73.7% | +72.3% | +60.4% | +89.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 24.0 | 43.1 | 33.0 | 60.2 | 65.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.0M | 1.9M | 4.2M | 5.9M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TMO and DHR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WGS as "Buy", TMO as "Buy", DHR as "Buy", PACB as "Buy", ILMN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 248.1% upside for WGS (target: $141) vs -39.4% for PACB (target: $1). For income investors, DHR offers the higher dividend yield at 0.70% vs TMO's 0.36%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $141.00 | $654.67 | $247.00 | $1.00 | $147.38 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 42 | 42 | 18 | 50 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.4% | +0.7% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 8 | 1 | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.69 | $1.23 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.7% | +2.5% | 0.0% | +3.5% |
ILMN leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Profitability & Efficiency. 5 categories are tied.
WGS vs TMO vs DHR vs PACB vs ILMN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is the stronger pick with 40. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) offers the better valuation at 25. 5x trailing P/E (26. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GeneDx Holdings Corp. (WGS) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
On trailing P/E, Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the cheapest at 25. 5x versus Danaher Corporation at 34. 9x. On forward P/E, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Illumina, Inc. wins at 6. 33x versus Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
Over the past 5 years, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
(TMO) delivered a total return of +2. 8%, compared to -93. 4% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TMO returned +229. 1% versus WGS's -87. 5%. 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 — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Danaher Corporation (DHR) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
94β versus Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. 's 2. 43β — meaning PACB is approximately 159% more volatile than DHR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Danaher Corporation (DHR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 142% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), GeneDx Holdings Corp.
(WGS) is pulling ahead at 40. 0% versus -0. 8% for Illumina, Inc. (ILMN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Illumina, Inc. grew EPS 170. 9% year-over-year, compared to -70. 1% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, WGS leads at 22. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
Illumina, Inc.
(ILMN) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 6% net margin versus -341. 5% for Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: DHR leads at 20. 9% versus -348. 5% for PACB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WGS leads at 69. 7%, 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 WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN 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, Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 6. 33x versus Danaher Corporation's 34. 35x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (TMO) trades at 19. 1x forward P/E versus 51. 1x for GeneDx Holdings Corp. — 32. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WGS: 248. 1% to $141. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN?
In this comparison, DHR (0.
7% yield), TMO (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. WGS, PACB, ILMN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is WGS or TMO or DHR or PACB or ILMN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Danaher Corporation (DHR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
94), 0. 7% yield, +219. 3% 10Y return). Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB) carries a higher beta of 2. 43 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (DHR: +219. 3%, PACB: -81. 3%), 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 WGS and TMO and DHR and PACB and ILMN?
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: WGS is a small-cap high-growth stock; TMO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; DHR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PACB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ILMN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. DHR pays a dividend while WGS, TMO, PACB, ILMN 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.