Home > Comparison > Healthcare > EW vs ZBH
The strategic rivalry between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings defines the current trajectory of the medical devices sector. Edwards focuses on innovative, minimally invasive structural heart solutions, while Zimmer Biomet dominates musculoskeletal healthcare with orthopedic reconstructive products. This analysis pits Edwards’ growth-driven, technology-centric model against Zimmer Biomet’s diversified, value-oriented approach. I will determine which company offers a superior risk-adjusted outlook for a balanced healthcare portfolio.
Table of contents
Companies Overview
Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet hold pivotal roles in the medical devices sector, shaping healthcare innovation globally.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation: Leader in Structural Heart Solutions
Edwards dominates the structural heart disease market with innovative transcatheter valve replacement and repair systems. Its core revenue stems from minimally invasive heart valve technologies and critical care monitoring products. In 2026, Edwards prioritizes expanding its transcatheter heart valve portfolio and advancing hemodynamic monitoring solutions to reinforce its clinical leadership.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.: Orthopedic and Musculoskeletal Specialist
Zimmer Biomet excels in orthopedic reconstructive products, including knee, hip, and spine devices. It generates revenue through a diverse range of musculoskeletal healthcare solutions targeting surgeons and hospitals worldwide. The company’s 2026 focus revolves around enhancing its surgical robotics and biologics offerings to deepen market penetration in musculoskeletal care.
Strategic Collision: Similarities & Divergences
Both companies innovate medical devices but pursue distinct niches: Edwards centers on cardiac care, Zimmer Biomet on orthopedics. Their primary battleground lies in surgical device advancements and hospital partnerships. Edwards offers a tech-driven, minimally invasive approach, while Zimmer Biomet emphasizes reconstructive breadth and surgical robotics. These differences create unique investment profiles with Edwards leaning toward high-growth structural heart innovation and Zimmer Biomet favoring steady orthopedic market presence.
Income Statement Comparison
This data dissects the core profitability and scalability of both corporate engines to reveal who dominates the bottom line:
| Metric | Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) | Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 6.07B | 8.23B |
| Cost of Revenue | 1.33B | 3.16B |
| Operating Expenses | 3.10B | 3.71B |
| Gross Profit | 4.74B | 5.07B |
| EBITDA | 1.27B | 2.22B |
| EBIT | 1.27B | 1.12B |
| Interest Expense | 0 | 293M |
| Net Income | 1.07B | 705M |
| EPS | 1.84 | 3.56 |
| Fiscal Year | 2025 | 2025 |
Income Statement Analysis: The Bottom-Line Duel
This income statement comparison reveals how efficiently Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet convert revenue into profit and sustain margins over time.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation Analysis
Edwards Lifesciences grew revenue from $5B in 2021 to $6.1B in 2025, showing steady top-line expansion. Gross margin remains robust at 78%, signaling strong production efficiency. However, net income declined from $1.5B in 2021 to $1.07B in 2025, reflecting margin compression and a 19% EBIT drop last year, indicating recent pressure on profitability.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Analysis
Zimmer Biomet increased revenue from $6.8B in 2021 to $8.2B in 2025, achieving a 21% overall growth. Gross margin sits lower at 62%, but net income surged 76% over five years to $705M in 2025. Despite a 10% EBIT decline last year, the company improved net margin by 46% over the period, showing notable bottom-line momentum.
Margin Strength vs. Earnings Momentum
Edwards leads with superior gross and net margins, reflecting operational efficiency and cost control. Zimmer Biomet, however, outpaces Edwards in net income growth and margin expansion over five years. For investors, Edwards offers margin stability, while Zimmer presents stronger earnings momentum and growth potential.
Financial Ratios Comparison
These vital ratios act as a diagnostic tool to expose the underlying fiscal health, valuation premiums, and capital efficiency of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH):
| Ratios | Edwards Lifesciences (EW) | Zimmer Biomet (ZBH) |
|---|---|---|
| ROE | 41.75% (2024) | 5.55% (2025) |
| ROIC | 10.74% (2024) | 5.48% (2025) |
| P/E | 10.60 (2024) | 25.25 (2025) |
| P/B | 4.43 (2024) | 1.40 (2025) |
| Current Ratio | 4.18 (2024) | 1.98 (2025) |
| Quick Ratio | 3.45 (2024) | 1.10 (2025) |
| D/E | 0.07 (2024) | 0.59 (2025) |
| Debt-to-Assets | 5.36% (2024) | 32.56% (2025) |
| Interest Coverage | 69.63 (2024) | 4.65 (2025) |
| Asset Turnover | 0.42 (2024) | 0.36 (2025) |
| Fixed Asset Turnover | 3.05 (2024) | 3.73 (2025) |
| Payout ratio | 0% (2024) | 27% (2025) |
| Dividend yield | 0% (2024) | 1.07% (2025) |
| Fiscal Year | 2024 | 2025 |
Efficiency & Valuation Duel: The Vital Signs
Financial ratios act as the company’s DNA, uncovering hidden risks and operational strengths essential for sound investment decisions.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Edwards shows strong net margins at 17.69%, signaling operational efficiency despite zero reported ROE and ROIC, which raises concern. The P/E of 46.44 marks the stock as expensive, reflecting high growth expectations. Edwards pays no dividend but invests heavily in R&D, committing 19.4% of revenue to innovation for future growth.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
Zimmer Biomet posts a modest net margin of 8.57% and a low ROE of 5.55%, indicating subdued profitability. Its P/E of 25.25 is more reasonable but still elevated. The company maintains a solid current ratio of 1.98 and pays a 1.07% dividend yield, balancing shareholder returns with moderate reinvestment in R&D at 5.6% of revenue.
Premium Valuation vs. Operational Safety
Edwards commands a premium valuation driven by high margins and heavy R&D, but lacks key profitability ratios, signaling risk. Zimmer Biomet trades cheaper with steadier liquidity and modest dividend income, offering a more balanced risk-reward profile. Investors favoring growth may lean toward Edwards; those prioritizing stability might prefer Zimmer Biomet.
Which one offers the Superior Shareholder Reward?
I see Zimmer Biomet (ZBH) delivers a mix of dividends and robust buybacks, yielding about 1.07% with a sustainable 27% payout ratio. Edwards Lifesciences (EW) pays no dividends but reinvests heavily in growth, with no buyback data. ZBH’s balanced yield and buybacks offer more immediate shareholder reward, while EW’s zero payout signals longer-term capital appreciation potential. For 2026, ZBH’s distribution model provides a more attractive total return for income-focused investors, but EW may reward patient growth investors.
Comparative Score Analysis: The Strategic Profile
The radar chart reveals the fundamental DNA and trade-offs of Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet, highlighting their financial strengths and weaknesses:
Zimmer Biomet dominates in discounted cash flow (5 vs. 3) and profitability metrics (ROE and ROA at 3 vs. 1 each). Edwards suffers across the board, especially in leverage and valuation ratios (all scores at 1). Zimmer Biomet offers a more balanced profile, while Edwards relies on a moderate DCF score despite weak operational efficiency and financial health.
Bankruptcy Risk: Solvency Showdown
Edwards Lifesciences scores a robust 11.51, signaling a very safe zone. Zimmer Biomet’s 1.74 places it in distress, implying significant bankruptcy risk in this cycle:
Financial Health: Quality of Operations
Zimmer Biomet achieves a strong Piotroski F-Score of 7, indicating solid internal financial health. Edwards scores a middling 4, raising red flags about operational quality:
How are the two companies positioned?
This section dissects the operational DNA of Edwards Lifesciences (EW) and Zimmer Biomet (ZBH) by comparing their revenue distribution and internal strengths and weaknesses. The goal is to confront their economic moats and identify which business model offers the most resilient, sustainable competitive advantage in today’s market.
Revenue Segmentation: The Strategic Mix
This visual comparison dissects how Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet diversify their income streams and highlights their primary sector bets:
Edwards Lifesciences pivots heavily on Transcatheter Heart Valves at $4.1B, dwarfing its other segments like Surgical Heart Valve Therapy at $981M. Zimmer Biomet shows a more balanced mix, splitting revenue among Knees ($3.17B), Hips ($2B), and S E T ($1.87B). Edwards faces concentration risk but leverages dominance in transcatheter tech. Zimmer’s diversified portfolio reduces vulnerability, securing broad orthopedic exposure.
Strengths and Weaknesses Comparison
This table compares the strengths and weaknesses of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH):
EW Strengths
- Leading revenues in Transcatheter Heart Valves at $4.1B
- Strong U.S. market presence with $3.2B revenue
- Favorable net margin at 17.69%
- Low debt-to-assets ratio and infinite interest coverage
ZBH Strengths
- Diversified product portfolio across Hips, Knees, S E T, and Other categories
- Strong Americas revenue at $4.8B
- Favorable current and quick ratios indicating liquidity
- Fixed asset turnover favorable at 3.73
EW Weaknesses
- Unfavorable ROE and ROIC at 0%
- Unavailable WACC data limits cost of capital analysis
- Unfavorable liquidity ratios with zero current and quick ratios
- High P/E ratio at 46.44 signals expensive valuation
- Asset turnover ratios unfavorable
ZBH Weaknesses
- Moderate profitability with net margin at 8.57%
- ROE and interest coverage are unfavorable or neutral
- P/E ratio at 25.25 considered high
- Debt-to-equity and debt-to-assets at neutral levels
- Asset turnover low at 0.36
The comparison shows EW excels in specialized product leadership and profitability margins but struggles with liquidity and returns on capital. ZBH offers broader diversification and healthier liquidity, yet faces challenges with profitability and asset efficiency. These factors suggest distinct strategic priorities for each company regarding capital structure and operational performance.
The Moat Duel: Analyzing Competitive Defensibility
A structural moat is the only reliable shield protecting long-term profits from relentless competition erosion. Let’s dissect how Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet defend theirs:
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation: Intangible Assets Moat
Edwards commands a moat rooted in patented transcatheter heart valve technology, reflected in its robust 78% gross margin. However, declining ROIC signals looming pressure, challenging its moat’s durability into 2026.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.: Cost and Scale Advantage
Zimmer Biomet leverages scale and operational efficiency across musculoskeletal devices, evident in steady margin expansion and a 54% ROIC growth trend. Its growing profitability suggests an improving moat, unlike Edwards’ weakening one.
Intangible Assets vs. Scale Efficiency: Which Moat Holds Stronger?
Zimmer Biomet’s expanding ROIC and improving margins indicate a deeper, more sustainable moat despite current value shedding. Edwards’ intangible asset moat is strong but faces erosion risks, making Zimmer better positioned to defend market share.
Which stock offers better returns?
The past year reveals contrasting price dynamics for Edwards Lifesciences and Zimmer Biomet, with both stocks showing overall declines but differing in recent trend behavior and trading volumes.
Trend Comparison
Edwards Lifesciences (EW) experienced a bearish trend over the last 12 months, with a price drop of 19.11%. The decline decelerated recently, reflected in a -12.46% change and reduced volatility (std dev 3.24).
Zimmer Biomet (ZBH) also showed a bearish 24.17% price decline over the year. However, its recent trend moderated to a near-neutral -1.1% change, with slightly higher volatility (std dev 3.42) and decelerating losses.
Comparing both, Edwards Lifesciences outperformed Zimmer Biomet, delivering a smaller total price decline and demonstrating more stable recent trading dynamics.
Target Prices
Analysts present a positive outlook with target consensus values well above current market prices.
| Company | Target Low | Target High | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edwards Lifesciences Corporation | 87 | 110 | 96.38 |
| Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. | 89 | 130 | 107.82 |
Both stocks trade significantly below consensus targets, implying upside potential. Edwards Lifesciences trades near 76, while Zimmer Biomet is around 96, indicating room for appreciation.
Don’t Let Luck Decide Your Entry Point
Optimize your entry points with our advanced ProRealTime indicators. You’ll get efficient buy signals with precise price targets for maximum performance. Start outperforming now!
How do institutions grade them?
This section compares the latest stock grades assigned to Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.:
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation Grades
The table below summarizes recent grades from major financial institutions for Edwards Lifesciences Corporation.
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Truist Securities | maintain | Hold | 2026-02-11 |
| Piper Sandler | maintain | Overweight | 2026-02-11 |
| Goldman Sachs | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-11 |
| BTIG | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-11 |
| Wells Fargo | maintain | Overweight | 2026-02-11 |
| Stifel | maintain | Buy | 2026-01-20 |
| Piper Sandler | maintain | Overweight | 2026-01-20 |
| UBS | maintain | Neutral | 2026-01-12 |
| Barclays | maintain | Overweight | 2026-01-12 |
| TD Cowen | upgrade | Buy | 2026-01-09 |
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Grades
This table shows recent grades assigned by key firms to Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barclays | maintain | Underweight | 2026-02-12 |
| Citigroup | maintain | Neutral | 2026-02-11 |
| Wells Fargo | maintain | Equal Weight | 2026-02-11 |
| BTIG | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-10 |
| Needham | maintain | Hold | 2026-02-10 |
| UBS | maintain | Sell | 2026-01-28 |
| Bernstein | maintain | Market Perform | 2026-01-09 |
| BTIG | maintain | Buy | 2026-01-08 |
| Evercore ISI Group | upgrade | Outperform | 2026-01-05 |
| Baird | downgrade | Neutral | 2025-12-16 |
Which company has the best grades?
Edwards Lifesciences consistently earns Buy and Overweight ratings, indicating stronger institutional confidence. Zimmer Biomet shows more mixed opinions, including Underweight and Sell grades. This divergence may influence investor sentiment and portfolio positioning.
Risks specific to each company
The following categories identify critical pressure points and systemic threats facing Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. in the 2026 market environment:
1. Market & Competition
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Strong niche in structural heart devices but faces intense innovation pressure.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Broad musculoskeletal portfolio with diversified products but highly competitive orthopedics market.
2. Capital Structure & Debt
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Low debt levels with excellent interest coverage, signaling financial stability.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Moderate leverage with a debt-to-assets ratio near 33%, requiring cautious monitoring.
3. Stock Volatility
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Beta near 0.94 suggests sensitivity to market swings, close to overall market volatility.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Lower beta at 0.61 indicating less volatility and potentially safer equity risk.
4. Regulatory & Legal
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Operates in high regulation medical devices industry, with risks from FDA approvals.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Similar regulatory environment with added complexity in international markets.
5. Supply Chain & Operations
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Direct sales and distributor model may expose it to supply disruptions.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Global supply chain complexity could increase operational risks.
6. ESG & Climate Transition
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Limited data on ESG efforts; potential risk if ESG standards tighten.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Moderate ESG engagement with room for improvement amid rising investor scrutiny.
7. Geopolitical Exposure
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- International sales expose it to geopolitical uncertainties, currency risks.
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
- Diversified global footprint but still vulnerable to regional trade tensions.
Which company shows a better risk-adjusted profile?
Edwards Lifesciences faces its biggest risk in market competition, pressured by innovation demands and valuation concerns. Zimmer Biomet’s primary risk lies in its moderate leverage and supply chain complexity. Zimmer Biomet’s lower stock volatility and stronger financial ratios indicate a better risk-adjusted profile. Notably, Edwards’ unfavorable financial ratios and high P/E multiple heighten risk despite its safe Altman Z-score.
Final Verdict: Which stock to choose?
Edwards Lifesciences (EW) stands out as a cash-generating innovator with a commanding gross margin and strong net profitability. Its main point of vigilance is a declining ROIC trend, signaling potential challenges in capital efficiency. This stock fits well in an Aggressive Growth portfolio seeking market leadership in medical technology.
Zimmer Biomet (ZBH) offers a strategic moat through its consistent revenue growth and improving profitability metrics. While it carries more leverage and a weaker liquidity profile than EW, it presents a more balanced risk-return profile. It suits investors focused on Growth at a Reasonable Price (GARP) with a preference for stability amid moderate expansion.
If you prioritize rapid innovation and high-margin growth, Edwards Lifesciences is the compelling choice due to its operational strength despite capital inefficiencies. However, if you seek better financial stability and a growing ROIC trajectory, Zimmer Biomet offers superior risk management and steady earnings improvement. Both scenarios require careful monitoring of their distinct vulnerabilities.
Disclaimer: Investment carries a risk of loss of initial capital. The past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Be sure to understand risks before making an investment decision.
Go Further
I encourage you to read the complete analyses of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. to enhance your investment decisions:
