3M Competitors

Stryker (NYSE:SYK) and 3M (NYSE:MMM) are both large-cap medical companies, but which is the superior stock? We will compare the two companies based on the strength of their earnings, risk, institutional ownership, profitability, analyst recommendations, valuation and dividends.

Earnings & Valuation

This table compares Stryker and 3M's revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

3M has higher revenue and earnings than Stryker. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Stryker, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Dividends

Stryker pays an annual dividend of $2.30 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.1%. 3M pays an annual dividend of $5.88 per share and has a dividend yield of 3.5%. Stryker pays out 27.8% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. 3M pays out 64.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. Stryker has increased its dividend for 1 consecutive years and 3M has increased its dividend for 1 consecutive years.

Profitability

This table compares Stryker and 3M's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

71.0% of Stryker shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 64.6% of 3M shares are owned by institutional investors. 6.8% of Stryker shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.4% of 3M shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Volatility and Risk

Stryker has a beta of 0.78, meaning that its stock price is 22% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, 3M has a beta of 0.97, meaning that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of current recommendations and price targets for Stryker and 3M, as reported by MarketBeat.com.

Stryker currently has a consensus price target of $220.68, indicating a potential upside of 2.77%. 3M has a consensus price target of $169.9167, indicating a potential upside of 2.26%. Given Stryker's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Stryker is more favorable than 3M.

Summary

Stryker beats 3M on 9 of the 17 factors compared between the two stocks.

Becton, Dickinson and (NYSE:BDX) and 3M (NYSE:MMM) are both large-cap medical companies, but which is the superior stock? We will compare the two companies based on the strength of their earnings, risk, institutional ownership, profitability, analyst recommendations, valuation and dividends.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

84.2% of Becton, Dickinson and shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 64.6% of 3M shares are owned by institutional investors. 0.1% of Becton, Dickinson and shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.4% of 3M shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a summary of current recommendations and price targets for Becton, Dickinson and and 3M, as reported by MarketBeat.com.

Becton, Dickinson and currently has a consensus price target of $280.8571, indicating a potential upside of 16.06%. 3M has a consensus price target of $169.9167, indicating a potential upside of 2.26%. Given Becton, Dickinson and's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Becton, Dickinson and is more favorable than 3M.

Earnings & Valuation

This table compares Becton, Dickinson and and 3M's revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

3M has higher revenue and earnings than Becton, Dickinson and. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Becton, Dickinson and, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Profitability

This table compares Becton, Dickinson and and 3M's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Volatility and Risk

Becton, Dickinson and has a beta of 0.84, meaning that its stock price is 16% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, 3M has a beta of 0.97, meaning that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Dividends

Becton, Dickinson and pays an annual dividend of $3.16 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.3%. 3M pays an annual dividend of $5.88 per share and has a dividend yield of 3.5%. Becton, Dickinson and pays out 27.1% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. 3M pays out 64.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. 3M has increased its dividend for 1 consecutive years. 3M is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

3M (NYSE:MMM) and Boston Scientific (NYSE:BSX) are both large-cap multi-sector conglomerates companies, but which is the better investment? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their earnings, risk, dividends, valuation, institutional ownership, profitability and analyst recommendations.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

64.6% of 3M shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 90.2% of Boston Scientific shares are held by institutional investors. 0.4% of 3M shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.7% of Boston Scientific shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of current ratings and target prices for 3M and Boston Scientific, as provided by MarketBeat.

3M currently has a consensus price target of $169.9167, suggesting a potential upside of 2.26%. Boston Scientific has a consensus price target of $44.6522, suggesting a potential upside of 21.14%. Given Boston Scientific's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Boston Scientific is more favorable than 3M.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares 3M and Boston Scientific's top-line revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Boston Scientific has lower revenue, but higher earnings than 3M. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Boston Scientific, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Profitability

This table compares 3M and Boston Scientific's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Volatility & Risk

3M has a beta of 0.97, meaning that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Boston Scientific has a beta of 0.97, meaning that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Summary

Boston Scientific beats 3M on 9 of the 14 factors compared between the two stocks.

3M (NYSE:MMM) and Baxter International (NYSE:BAX) are both large-cap multi-sector conglomerates companies, but which is the better investment? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their earnings, risk, dividends, valuation, institutional ownership, profitability and analyst recommendations.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

64.6% of 3M shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 84.2% of Baxter International shares are held by institutional investors. 0.4% of 3M shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.1% of Baxter International shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a stock will outperform the market over the long term.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of current ratings and target prices for 3M and Baxter International, as provided by MarketBeat.

3M currently has a consensus price target of $169.9167, suggesting a potential upside of 2.26%. Baxter International has a consensus price target of $96.4118, suggesting a potential upside of 20.50%. Given Baxter International's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe Baxter International is more favorable than 3M.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares 3M and Baxter International's top-line revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

3M has higher revenue and earnings than Baxter International. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Baxter International, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Profitability

This table compares 3M and Baxter International's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Risk & Volatility

3M has a beta of 0.97, suggesting that its share price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Baxter International has a beta of 0.77, suggesting that its share price is 23% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Dividends

3M pays an annual dividend of $5.88 per share and has a dividend yield of 3.5%. Baxter International pays an annual dividend of $0.98 per share and has a dividend yield of 1.2%. 3M pays out 64.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Baxter International pays out 29.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. 3M has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years. 3M is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Summary

3M beats Baxter International on 10 of the 17 factors compared between the two stocks.

3M (NYSE:MMM) and DexCom (NASDAQ:DXCM) are both large-cap multi-sector conglomerates companies, but which is the better investment? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their earnings, risk, dividends, valuation, institutional ownership, profitability and analyst recommendations.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

64.6% of 3M shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 97.5% of DexCom shares are held by institutional investors. 0.4% of 3M shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.7% of DexCom shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that endowments, large money managers and hedge funds believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Analyst Ratings

This is a summary of current ratings and target prices for 3M and DexCom, as provided by MarketBeat.

3M currently has a consensus price target of $169.9167, suggesting a potential upside of 2.26%. DexCom has a consensus price target of $400.2105, suggesting a potential downside of 4.26%. Given 3M's higher probable upside, equities analysts plainly believe 3M is more favorable than DexCom.

Earnings and Valuation

This table compares 3M and DexCom's top-line revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

3M has higher revenue and earnings than DexCom. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than DexCom, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Volatility & Risk

3M has a beta of 0.97, meaning that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, DexCom has a beta of 0.79, meaning that its stock price is 21% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Profitability

This table compares 3M and DexCom's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Summary

3M beats DexCom on 8 of the 14 factors compared between the two stocks.

3M (NYSE:MMM) and ResMed (NYSE:RMD) are both large-cap multi-sector conglomerates companies, but which is the superior investment? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their earnings, dividends, profitability, institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, risk and valuation.

Insider and Institutional Ownership

64.6% of 3M shares are owned by institutional investors. Comparatively, 69.4% of ResMed shares are owned by institutional investors. 0.4% of 3M shares are owned by company insiders. Comparatively, 1.3% of ResMed shares are owned by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Analyst Recommendations

This is a breakdown of current ratings and price targets for 3M and ResMed, as provided by MarketBeat.com.

3M presently has a consensus price target of $169.9167, suggesting a potential upside of 2.26%. ResMed has a consensus price target of $186.6667, suggesting a potential upside of 3.40%. Given ResMed's higher probable upside, analysts clearly believe ResMed is more favorable than 3M.

Earnings & Valuation

This table compares 3M and ResMed's gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

3M has higher revenue and earnings than ResMed. 3M is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than ResMed, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Dividends

3M pays an annual dividend of $5.88 per share and has a dividend yield of 3.5%. ResMed pays an annual dividend of $1.56 per share and has a dividend yield of 0.9%. 3M pays out 64.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. ResMed pays out 32.8% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. 3M has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years and ResMed has raised its dividend for 7 consecutive years.

Volatility & Risk

3M has a beta of 0.97, indicating that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, ResMed has a beta of 0.38, indicating that its stock price is 62% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Profitability

This table compares 3M and ResMed's net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Summary

ResMed beats 3M on 9 of the 16 factors compared between the two stocks.