vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Becton Dickinson (BDX) and Boston Scientific (BSX), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Boston Scientific is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($5.3B vs $5.3B, roughly 1.0× Becton Dickinson). Boston Scientific runs the higher net margin — 7.3% vs 12.7%, a 5.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Boston Scientific posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (15.8% vs -0.4%). Boston Scientific produced more free cash flow last quarter ($1.0B vs $549.0M). Over the past eight quarters, Boston Scientific's revenue compounded faster (17.1% CAGR vs 2.0%).
Becton, Dickinson and Company is an American multinational medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument systems, and reagents. BD also provides consulting and analytics services in certain areas.
Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) is an American biotechnology and biomedical engineering firm and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in interventional medical specialties, including interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, peripheral interventions, neuromodulation, neurovascular intervention, electrophysiology, cardiac surgery, vascular surgery, endoscopy, oncology, urology and gynecology.
BDX vs BSX — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.3B | $5.3B |
| Net Profit | $382.0M | $670.0M |
| Gross Margin | 45.9% | 69.6% |
| Operating Margin | 10.5% | 15.6% |
| Net Margin | 7.3% | 12.7% |
| Revenue YoY | -0.4% | 15.8% |
| Net Profit YoY | 24.0% | 19.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.34 | $0.45 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $5.3B | $5.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.9B | $5.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.5B | $5.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.3B | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.2B | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.4B | $4.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.0B | $4.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.0B | $3.9B |
| Q4 25 | $382.0M | $670.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $493.0M | $755.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $574.0M | $795.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $308.0M | $672.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $303.0M | $563.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $400.0M | $468.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $487.0M | $322.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $537.0M | $493.0M |
| Q4 25 | 45.9% | 69.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 47.5% | 69.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 47.8% | 67.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 42.8% | 68.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 43.2% | 67.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 45.7% | 68.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 46.2% | 69.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 45.7% | 68.7% |
| Q4 25 | 10.5% | 15.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.8% | 20.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.0% | 16.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.4% | 19.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.8% | 14.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.4% | 17.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.1% | 12.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 14.5% | 17.5% |
| Q4 25 | 7.3% | 12.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.4% | 14.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.4% | 15.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 5.8% | 14.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 5.9% | 12.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 7.4% | 11.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.8% | 7.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.6% | 12.8% |
| Q4 25 | $1.34 | $0.45 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.71 | $0.51 | ||
| Q2 25 | $2.00 | $0.53 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.07 | $0.45 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.04 | $0.38 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.37 | $0.32 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.68 | $0.22 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.85 | $0.33 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $740.0M | $2.0B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $11.1B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $25.3B | $24.2B |
| Total Assets | $54.8B | $43.7B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 0.46× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $740.0M | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $641.0M | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $735.0M | $534.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $667.0M | $725.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $711.0M | $414.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $2.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.5B | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.3B | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $11.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $10.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $9.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $9.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $9.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $9.5B |
| Q4 25 | $25.3B | $24.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $25.4B | $23.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $25.5B | $22.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | $25.2B | $22.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $25.2B | $21.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $25.9B | $20.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $25.9B | $20.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $25.6B | $19.9B |
| Q4 25 | $54.8B | $43.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $55.3B | $42.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $54.9B | $41.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $54.5B | $40.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $54.7B | $39.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $57.3B | $38.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $55.6B | $37.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $54.2B | $36.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | 0.46× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.50× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.47× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.41× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.45× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.44× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.48× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $657.0M | $1.4B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $549.0M | $1.0B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 10.5% | 19.2% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 2.1% | 6.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.72× | 2.04× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.6B | $3.7B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $657.0M | $1.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.4B | $1.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.2B | $1.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $164.0M | $541.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $693.0M | $1.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.2B | $1.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.3B | $813.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $514.0M | $164.0M |
| Q4 25 | $549.0M | $1.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.0B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.0B | $1.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $35.0M | $354.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $588.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $882.0M | $823.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.1B | $658.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $380.0M | $-15.0M |
| Q4 25 | 10.5% | 19.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.0% | 22.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.0% | 22.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.7% | 7.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | 11.4% | 25.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | 16.2% | 19.6% | ||
| Q2 24 | 22.4% | 16.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 7.5% | -0.4% |
| Q4 25 | 2.1% | 6.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 6.0% | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.2% | 3.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.4% | 4.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.0% | 6.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 5.4% | 4.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.6% | 3.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.7% | 4.6% |
| Q4 25 | 1.72× | 2.04× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.75× | 1.78× | ||
| Q2 25 | 2.12× | 1.62× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.53× | 0.81× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.29× | 2.59× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.94× | 2.14× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.66× | 2.52× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.96× | 0.33× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
BDX
| Other | $2.8B | 53% |
| Medication Management Solutions | $678.0M | 13% |
| Urologyand Critical Care | $339.0M | 6% |
| Surgery | $310.0M | 6% |
| Peripheral Intervention | $265.0M | 5% |
| Specimen Management | $245.0M | 5% |
| Advanced Patient Monitoring | $178.0M | 3% |
| Diagnostic Solutions | $176.0M | 3% |
| Bio Pharma Systems | $150.0M | 3% |
| Biosciences | $124.0M | 2% |
BSX
| Cardiovascular | $3.5B | 66% |
| Electrophysiology EP | $606.0M | 11% |
| Global Urologyand Pelvic Health Reporting Unit | $521.0M | 10% |
| Watchman | $485.0M | 9% |
| Global Neuromodulation Nm Reporting Unit | $252.0M | 5% |
