Head to head
Warby Parker vs Intuitive Surgical
Side-by-side on the measures that matter, with a plain-English read. Full detail: WRBY · ISRG
WRBY
Warby Parker
25.31-3.51%
1-year price shape — +2% over the period
Quant Rating C · 39/100
vs
ISRG
Intuitive Surgical
414.52+2.41%
1-year price shape — -6% over the period
Quant Rating D · 30/100
1-year performance, rebased to 100
Intuitive Surgical edges it on the scoreable measures. Intuitive Surgical trades cheapest on trailing earnings; Intuitive Surgical earns the most per share.
| WRBY | ISRG | |
|---|---|---|
| Snapshot | ||
| Sector | Medical Instruments & Supplies | Medical Instruments & Supplies |
| Last price | 25.31 | 414.52 |
| Change today | -3.51% | +2.41% |
| 1-year return | +2.4% | -6.0% |
| Market cap | $3.13B | $146.44B |
| 52-week range | 14.96 – 31.00 | 328.57 – 603.88 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E (TTM) | 421.83 | 47.54 |
| P/E percentile, own 5-yr range | 90th | 6th |
| P/B | 7.98 | 8.06 |
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Profitability & growth | ||
| EPS (TTM) | 0.01 | 7.87 |
| Net profit (TTM) | $1.24M | $2.78B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $911.61M | $11.03B |
| Revenue growth (YoY) | +9.8% | +18.5% |
| Gross margin | 54.7% | 66.7% |
| Operating margin | 0.2% | 31.3% |
| Net margin | 0.8% | 28.4% |
| Free cash flow (TTM) | $21.75M | $3.22B |
| Ownership & sentiment | ||
| Institutional ownership | 102.1% | 88.8% |
| Insider activity (12mo) | 18 buy / 32 sell | 21 buy / 29 sell |
| Short interest (% of float) | 14.3% | 2.3% |
| Analyst consensus | 80% buy / 20% hold (10) | 86% buy / 14% hold (21) |
| Analyst price target | $31 (+22%) | $490 (+18%) |
| StockVane view | ||
| StockVane Quant Rating | C (39) | D (30) |
| Company | ||
| Employees | 4,036 | 17,021 |
| Founded | 2010 | 1995 |
▲ marks the more favourable stock(s) on measures with a clear direction (lower P/E, higher yield, higher Quant Rating, better 1-year return). Analyst consensus counts each covering institution once, at its most recent rating. Not a recommendation. Quant Rating method: Data & Methodology.