ABT vs. GH: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at ABT and GH, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
ABT dominates in value with a market cap of 231.49 billion USD, eclipsing GH’s 4.60 billion USD by roughly 50.38×.
GH carries a higher beta at 1.49, indicating it’s more sensitive to market moves, while ABT remains steadier at 0.74.
| Symbol | ABT | GH |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Abbott Laboratories | Guardant Health, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Healthcare | Healthcare |
| Industry | Medical - Devices | Medical - Diagnostics & Research |
| CEO | Mr. Robert B. Ford | Dr. Helmy Eltoukhy Ph.D. |
| Price | 133.05 USD | 37.09 USD |
| Market Cap | 231.49 billion USD | 4.60 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.74 | 1.49 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NASDAQ |
| IPO Date | March 17, 1980 | October 4, 2018 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of ABT and GH over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of ABT and GH based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- GH shows a negative P/E of -11.03, highlighting a year of losses, whereas ABT at 17.22 trades on solid profitability.
- GH carries a sub-zero price-to-book ratio of -18.32, indicating negative equity. In contrast, ABT (P/B 2.48) has positive book value.
- GH reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -15.07, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while ABT at 34.77 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | ABT | GH |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 17.22 | -11.03 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 1.73 | 0.46 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 5.47 | 5.94 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 2.48 | -18.32 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 34.77 | -15.07 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 22.97 | -13.08 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 5.63 | 6.72 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 35.78 | -17.07 |
Dividend Comparison
ABT delivers a 1.71% dividend yield, blending income with growth, whereas GH appears to retain its profits, possibly to fund operations, R&D, or other growth initiatives.
| Symbol | ABT | GH |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 1.71% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of ABT and GH, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- GH has negative equity (debt-to-equity ratio -5.21), suggesting asset shortfalls, whereas ABT at 0.14 preserves healthier equity coverage.
- GH carries a debt-to-assets ratio of 0.97, suggesting substantial asset funding via debt, while ABT at 0.16 opts for a more conservative financing structure.
- ABT meets its interest obligations (ratio 15.39). In stark contrast, GH’s negative ratio (-166.83) means its operating earnings (EBIT) don't cover basic operations, let alone interest, signaling serious financial trouble.
| Symbol | ABT | GH |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 1.78 | 4.11 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 1.27 | 3.76 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.14 | -5.21 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.16 | 0.97 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 15.39 | -166.83 |