Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
How Intuitive Surgical, Inc. stacks up
ISRG · against 25 other Healthcare companies of similar size
Valuation
47/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #24 of 26 · scores higher than 8% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score1 peers with a valuation score of 40–49, including ISRG · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 47?
Weighted metrics compared with all Healthcare companies.Its metrics sit close to the Healthcare norm.
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 2.8% vs peer median 4.0%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 2.0% vs peer median 1.5%
- more free cash flow for the price paid: stronger than 61% of peers. Free cash flow yield: 2.1% vs peer median 0.0%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = ISRG, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | ISRG | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 26 reported | 2.0% | 4.0% | 8% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 26 reported | 2.8% | 6.7% | 4% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 25 reported | 2.1% | 4.9% | 4% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 24 reported | 11.6% | 20.3% | 22% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around ISRG| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 177.5B USD | 92 | 71 | |
| 2 | 78.1B USD | 89 | 60 | |
| 3 | 108.6B USD | 88 | 66 | |
| 4 | 97.5B USD | 87 | 67 | |
| 5 | 126.1B USD | 83 | 62 | |
| 20 | 134.5B USD | 55 | 70 | |
| 21 | 161.8B USD | 53 | 50 | |
| 21 | 258.2B USD | 53 | 47 | |
| 23 | 126.5B USD | 50 | 56 | |
| 24 | 155.7B USD | 47 | 64 | |
| 25 | 207.7B USD | 8 | 18 | |
| 25 | 91.2B USD | 8 | 18 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score