The structural profiles are close, with Medtronic carrying a narrow edge on growth. Zimmer Biomet still has the edge on growth, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. Both sides have seen trend damage — neither carries a clear market edge right now. With both trends damaged, the structural comparison carries most of the weight here.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
On growth, the clearer edge sits with Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., while the overall score remains tighter and points the other way.
Both operate in: Medical Devices
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. MDT and ZBH share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Medtronic and Zimmer Biomet each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The setup is mixed: neither company clearly combines the stronger profile with the more supportive price setup.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where MDT and ZBH each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The main growth separation is very wide, driven by a meaningfully stronger expansion profile.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. still shows lower market-fundamental divergence, which keeps the wider picture mixed rather than completely one-sided.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with profitability adding further support — though growth still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the MDT vs ZBH comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MDT and ZBH each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.