Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Looking up the ticker with the regulator···
0s · usually 20–30 seconds for a cold read
Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
Signals align: quality at a discount to the sector
Get notified when we ship meaningful updates. No spam, no daily noise.
4 of 5 met · composite in line with peers
Business quality, valuation against the sector, and position in the 52-week range — whether they line up or not.
Stable quality
Profitability
4/4
Debt & liquidity
1/3
Efficiency
1/2
Revenue grew 20.5% year over year against a sector median of 5.9%, and FCF expanded at a pace +2,004% above the sector median — the cash generation is real, not a reporting artifact. The balance sheet reinforces that picture: Debt/EBITDA sits at 0.0×, -100% below the sector median of 3.1×, and the current ratio of 4.87 runs well above the sector median of 1.40. The F-Score of 6/9 reflects solid profitability and financial health, though the efficiency sub-score leaves room. Where the read gets harder is price: EV/EBITDA of 39.4× sits +84% above the sector median of 21.5×, and FCF yield of 2.3% trails the median 3.9% by -42%. Consensus and the realized three-year EPS CAGR per SEC filings are broadly aligned here, and the beat rate over eight quarters has been strong — the market's growth expectations carry more historical support than is typical.
| Ticker | Name | F-Score | ROE | Revenue YoY | Op. margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABBV | AbbVie | 8/9 | 15 367% |
Quarter-by-quarter classification · a retrospective read by the current logic · not a price forecast
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. The method did not see these quarters in real time; this is the current logic applied to past reports.
The market prices in earnings growth; analyst sentiment is steady; has mostly beaten consensus.
Price against next year's expected earnings. The forward P/E already carries analyst optimism — read it alongside the “Versus consensus” line.
A forward P/E below the current one means the market expects earnings to grow; above it, to fall. The historical growth is realized figures from SEC filings, not a forecast.
The three-month change in the share of positive analyst ratings. This is sentiment, not an earnings-estimate revision, and not a call to act.
When ISRG reports on October 19, 2026, track whether FCF growth sustains its pace above the sector median of -7.73% and whether the profitability block holds its clean 4/4 score. A slip in operating cash conversion would be the first signal worth rechecking against the current EV/EBITDA of 84% above sector median.
Pull the most recent 10-K on SEC EDGAR and focus on management's discussion of capital allocation and competitive pricing pressure — both bear on the FCF yield sitting 42% below the sector median of 3.95%. The leverage section is worth cross-checking given the Leverage and Liquidity sub-score of 1/3 despite a debt-free EBITDA ratio.
From the alphabetical same-sector table in section 06, pick two or three companies yourself and line up EV/EBITDA alongside FCF yield. ISRG's EV/EBITDA stands 84% above the sector median of 21.5×, so placing it beside peers of your choosing gives a clearer sense of where that premium sits relative to the range, without singling out any one company.
Steps you can check yourself, based on the figures in this brief.
Piotroski F-Score: nine binary tests of financial strength from the annual report. A ✓ marks a test passed, a dot (·) a test failed.
Over 4 years: -45%-22%+74%+91%
Over 4 years: 0.000.000.000.00
Over 4 years: +9%+14%+17%+21%
The context on the right shows how each figure compares with the sector median. The trend below tracks the change over recent fiscal years.
Beat consensus in 8 of 8 recent quarters — the company clears estimates regularly (consensus is often set conservatively).
Last quarter's EPS against consensus, plus the estimated date of the next report.
| +9% |
| 25% |
| ABT | Abbott | 6/9 | 13% | +6% | 18% |
| AMGN | Amgen | 7/9 | 106% | +10% | 25% |
| BMY | Bristol-Myers Squibb | 8/9 | 41% | -0% | — |
| CVS | CVS Health | 6/9 | 2% | +8% | 1% |
| DHR | Danaher | 5/9 | 7% | +3% | 19% |
| GILD | Gilead Sciences | 8/9 | 40% | +2% | 34% |
| ISRG | Intuitive Surgical, Inc. | 6/9 | 17% | +21% | 29% |
| JNJ | Johnson & Johnson | 4/9 | 35% | +6% | — |
| LLY | Eli Lilly | 7/9 | 101% | +45% | — |
| MRK | Merck | 4/9 | 37% | +1% | — |
| PFE | Pfizer | 5/9 | 9% | -2% | — |
| TMO | Thermo Fisher | 5/9 | 13% | +4% | 17% |
| UNH | UnitedHealth | 7/9 | 18% | +12% | 4% |
A sample of 14 companies in the sector including the target, alphabetical, unranked. Data from the latest SEC annual reports.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
A simplified retrospective read: no analyst forecast (not available historically); the source is the annual report as of the date, so neighbouring quarters can rest on the same data. Quarters with the same classification in a row are merged into one row — each row is one change in the read, not a separate quarter. One ticker is an illustration of the classification logic, not statistics. How we calculate →
The last few quarters are recent context, not a fixed rate. Consensus for near quarters is set low, so companies clear it routinely; over long horizons the forecasts run the other way, too high.
A description of what the market and analysts expect. Not a price forecast and not investment advice. Analyst forecasts run systematically optimistic over long horizons — read them with that discount.