ZBH vs GMED vs SYK vs BSX

For growth investors, Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) is the stronger pick with 19.

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 2% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). Globus Medical, Inc. (GMED) offers the better valuation at 21. 7x trailing P/E (19. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Globus Medical, Inc. (GMED) a "Buy" — based on 36 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.

On trailing P/E, Globus Medical, Inc.

(GMED) is the cheapest at 21. 7x versus Stryker Corporation at 35. 0x. On forward P/E, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 8x — 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: Globus Medical, Inc. wins at 0. 61x versus Stryker Corporation's 1. 32x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) delivered a total return of +31.

2%, compared to -47. 3% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GMED returned +264. 4% versus ZBH's -17. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

34β versus Globus Medical, Inc. 's 1. 29β — meaning GMED is approximately 275% more volatile than BSX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Globus Medical, Inc. (GMED) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 66% for Stryker Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) is pulling ahead at 19.

9% versus 7. 2% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Globus Medical, Inc. grew EPS 422. 7% year-over-year, compared to -19. 9% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GMED leads at 42. 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.

Globus Medical, Inc.

(GMED) is the more profitable company, earning 18. 3% net margin versus 8. 6% for Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 18. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BSX leads at 19. 8% versus 16. 3% for GMED. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BSX leads at 69. 0%, 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.

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, Globus Medical, Inc. (GMED) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 61x versus Stryker Corporation's 1. 32x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) trades at 9. 8x forward P/E versus 19. 6x for Stryker Corporation — 9. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BSX: 61. 4% to $91. 33.

In this comparison, ZBH (1.

1% yield), SYK (1. 1% yield) pay a dividend. GMED, BSX do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Stryker Corporation (SYK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

55), 1. 1% yield, +187. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SYK: +187. 1%, GMED: +264. 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.

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: ZBH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; GMED is a mid-cap high-growth stock; SYK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BSX is a mid-cap high-growth stock. ZBH, SYK pay a dividend while GMED, BSX 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.