vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Boston Scientific (BSX) and Dexcom (DXCM), 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 $1.3B, roughly 4.2× Dexcom). Dexcom runs the higher net margin — 12.7% vs 21.2%, a 8.5% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Dexcom posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (21.6% vs 15.8%). Over the past eight quarters, Boston Scientific's revenue compounded faster (17.1% CAGR vs 12.0%).
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.
Dexcom, Inc. is an American multinational healthcare company that develops, manufactures, produces and distributes a line of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems for diabetes management. It operates internationally with global headquarters and R&D center in San Diego, California, U.S.A. and manufacturing facilities in Mesa, Arizona, U.S.A.; Batu Kawan, Malaysia and Athenry, County Galway, Ireland.
BSX vs DXCM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $5.3B | $1.3B |
| Net Profit | $670.0M | $267.3M |
| Gross Margin | 69.6% | 62.9% |
| Operating Margin | 15.6% | 25.6% |
| Net Margin | 12.7% | 21.2% |
| Revenue YoY | 15.8% | 21.6% |
| Net Profit YoY | 19.0% | 153.6% |
| EPS (diluted) | $0.45 | $0.67 |
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.
| Q1 26 | — | $1.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $5.3B | $1.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $5.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $5.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.7B | $1.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | $1.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $994.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1B | $1.0B |
| Q1 26 | — | $267.3M | ||
| Q4 25 | $670.0M | $267.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $755.0M | $283.8M | ||
| Q2 25 | $795.0M | $179.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $672.0M | $105.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $563.0M | $151.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | $468.0M | $134.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $322.0M | $143.5M |
| Q1 26 | — | 62.9% | ||
| Q4 25 | 69.6% | 62.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 69.9% | 60.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 67.7% | 59.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 68.8% | 56.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 67.8% | 58.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 68.8% | 59.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 69.2% | 62.4% |
| Q1 26 | — | 25.6% | ||
| Q4 25 | 15.6% | 25.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 20.7% | 20.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.2% | 18.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 19.8% | 12.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | 14.8% | 17.0% | ||
| Q3 24 | 17.4% | 15.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | 12.6% | 15.7% |
| Q1 26 | — | 21.2% | ||
| Q4 25 | 12.7% | 21.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 14.9% | 23.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 15.7% | 15.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.4% | 10.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 12.3% | 13.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 11.1% | 13.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | 7.8% | 14.3% |
| Q1 26 | — | $0.67 | ||
| Q4 25 | $0.45 | $0.67 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.51 | $0.70 | ||
| Q2 25 | $0.53 | $0.45 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.45 | $0.27 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.38 | $0.37 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.32 | $0.34 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.22 | $0.35 |
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 | $2.0B | $917.7M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $11.1B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $24.2B | $2.7B |
| Total Assets | $43.7B | $6.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.46× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | $917.7M | ||
| Q4 25 | $2.0B | $917.7M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $534.0M | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $725.0M | $904.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $414.0M | $606.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.5B | $621.2M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.9B | $939.2M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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 26 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q4 25 | $24.2B | $2.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $23.4B | $2.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $22.4B | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | $22.2B | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $21.8B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 24 | $20.7B | $2.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $20.4B | $2.4B |
| Q1 26 | — | $6.3B | ||
| Q4 25 | $43.7B | $6.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $42.7B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.6B | $7.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $40.1B | $6.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $39.4B | $6.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $38.1B | $6.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $37.1B | $6.8B |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| 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× | — |
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 | $1.4B | — |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $1.0B | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 19.2% | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 6.6% | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 2.04× | — |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $3.7B | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $294.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $659.9M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.3B | $303.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $541.0M | $183.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.5B | $301.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.0B | $199.5M | ||
| Q2 24 | $813.0M | $279.4M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | $1.0B | $192.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $579.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $208.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $354.0M | $96.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.2B | $176.8M | ||
| Q3 24 | $823.0M | $88.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $658.0M | $213.3M |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 19.2% | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 22.9% | 47.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 22.3% | 18.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.6% | 9.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 25.8% | 15.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 19.6% | 8.9% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.0% | 21.2% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 6.6% | 8.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 3.6% | 6.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 3.1% | 8.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.0% | 8.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 6.1% | 11.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 4.3% | 11.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 3.8% | 6.6% |
| Q1 26 | — | — | ||
| Q4 25 | 2.04× | 1.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.78× | 2.33× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.62× | 1.69× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.81× | 1.74× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.59× | 1.99× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.14× | 1.48× | ||
| Q2 24 | 2.52× | 1.95× |
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
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% |
DXCM
Segment breakdown not available.
