GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. (GMED): what the price requires
At today's price, GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. (GMED) is priced for today's economics sustained for ~5.2 years. boothcheck doesn't publish a fair value or a price target; it shows what the price assumes, so you can judge whether that bar is too high.
Generated: 2026-07-14 · Exported: 2026-07-16 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/GMED
Headline
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ticker | GMED |
| Company | GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC. |
| Current price | $79.78/sh |
| Composition | U.S. 81% / International 19% |
What The Price Requires (Inversion)
The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Inversion basis | whole-company |
| Operating margin needed | 5.7% |
| Operating margin today | 16.0% |
| Margin compression implied | -10.3pp |
| Must persist for | 5.2y |
| Multiple paid | 22x operating income |
The operating-margin requirement is derived from the framework's value band at year 5, a separately labeled basis from the headline growth/duration solve.
Solve inputs: computed at a 10.2% cost of capital; growth searched up to the 25% self-funding ceiling; each 1pp moves the implied horizon ~1.7 years.
How unusual the bet is: within-range
| Reference | Value |
|---|---|
| vs own history | +0.57σ |
| cohort percentile (of 112 peers) | 51 |
| sustained it ~5.2 years at this level | 35% |
| implied end-window share | 0% |
Valuation X-Ray
The price is justified by relative-multiple and growth-DCF; asset-based/earnings-power land below the price.
How the valuation models price the stock relative to the market price. Price/FV above 1.0 means the market pays more than that lens defends (expensive); at or below 1.0 the lens can defend the price.
| Family | Median price/FV | Models | Reads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset | 1.51x | 5 | expensive |
| Earnings | 1.72x | 5 | expensive |
| Relative | 0.83x | 5 | justifies |
| Growth | 0.69x | 3 | justifies |
Families that justify the price: Relative, Growth Families that call it expensive: Asset, Earnings
The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 9.1%); the inversion above states its own rate.
Per-Model Detail (n=18)
| Model | Family | FV | Price/FV | Applicable | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCF Perpetual Growth | Growth | $186.29 | 0.43x | yes | FCF base $0.7B, growth 24% (input: historical growth), terminal g 4.0%, WACC 9.1%, 7yr projection |
| DCF Exit Multiple | Growth | $116.35 | 0.69x | yes | Exit EV/EBITDA: 11.3x / 13.3x / 15.3x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull), 7yr |
| Relative Valuation | Relative | $108.99 | 0.73x | yes | P/E 24x (static sector reference · 2026-04), scenarios: 19.3x / 24.0x / 28.7x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 16x |
| Simple DDM | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Two-Stage DDM | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Simple Excess Return | Asset | $45.90 | 1.74x | yes | BV/sh $34.24, ROE (TTM) 12.4%, ke 9.3% |
| Two-Stage Excess Return | Asset | $52.77 | 1.51x | yes | 5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3% |
| Discounted Future Market Cap | Growth | $98.32 | 0.81x | yes | Rev $3.1B, growth 24% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 2.9x / 3.6x / 4.2x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 12x) |
| Peter Lynch Fair Value | Relative | $51.36 | 1.55x | yes | EPS $4.28, growth 2% (input: historical EPS growth), PEG=9.39 (Overvalued) |
| Margin Trajectory | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Earnings Power Value | Earnings | $18.29 | 4.36x | yes | Normalized EBIT (5y avg op income, one-time charges added back) $0.26B × (1−21%) / WACC 9.1% → EPV (no growth) |
| Residual Income | Asset | $54.19 | 1.47x | yes | BV $34.24 + 5yr PV of (ROE (TTM) 12.4% − Kₑ 9.3%) × BV; BV grows 8.1%/yr |
| Graham Number | Asset | $57.43 | 1.39x | yes | √(22.5 × EPS $4.28 × BVPS $34.24) — Graham's conservative floor |
| EV/EBITDA Relative | Relative | $95.82 | 0.83x | yes | EBITDA $0.81B × sector EV/EBITDA 16.0x |
| FCF Yield | Earnings | $49.34 | 1.62x | yes | FCF $610.3M / Kₑ 9.3% — zero-growth perpetuity |
| SBC-Adj FCF Yield | Earnings | $45.50 | 1.75x | yes | SBC-adj FCF $0.56B (FCF $0.61B − SBC $0.05B) capitalized at Kₑ |
| Ben Graham Formula | Earnings | $138.10 | 0.58x | yes | EPS $4.28 × (8.5 + 2×15.0%) × (4.4 / 5.3%) |
| ROIC-Justified P/B | Asset | $9.94 | 8.03x | yes | BV $34.24 × (ROIC 2.6% / WACC 9.1%) |
| P/Sales Sector | Relative | $89.75 | 0.89x | yes | Revenue $3.10B × sector P/S 4.0x |
| PEG Fair Value | Relative | $160.50 | 0.50x | yes | EPS $4.28 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 25.0% (input: historical EPS growth)) → PE 37.5x |
| Earnings Yield | Earnings | $46.27 | 1.72x | yes | EPS $4.28 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%) |
| Funds From Operations Multiple | Relative | — | — | no | — |
| Clinical Phase NPV | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Merton | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| V5 Mechanical | — | — | — | no | — |
Solvency
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Net cash | $629.1m |
| Net debt / NOPAT (after-tax) | -1.72x (net cash) |
| Net debt / operating income (pre-tax) | -1.37x (net cash) |
| Share count CAGR (dilution) | 7.3% |
| Burning cash | no |
Interest expense is not separately reported in the latest filings, so interest coverage cannot be computed.
Bullet Takeaways
- Globus Medical is the spine business that owns its own robot: the Excelsius navigation and robotics platform pulls implant sales through every system it places, and the company describes offering flexibility to customers for our capital equipment within our Excelsius ecosystem by offering capital sales and leasing arrangements.
- The biggest specific risk is the combination of integration and reimbursement: management's own filing warns the NuVasive and Nevro mergers may not deliver the anticipated synergies on the expected timeline, Nevro revenue fell 17.1% to $82.7 million in the quarter, and the 2026 CMS physician fee schedule carries valuation risk for complex spine.
- Watch full-year execution: management raised 2026 EPS guidance to $4.70 to $4.80 against reaffirmed revenue of $3.18 billion to $3.22 billion, with U.S. spine up 10% to $347 million and adjusted gross margin at 69.2%, so the question is whether base-business momentum holds as the spine market re-prices.
Bull Case
Globus Medical sits at an unusual stage for a med-tech name: large enough to have scale and a positive cash position, but still growing like a much younger company, which changes how the numbers should be read. A mature device company is judged on share gains and margin; a growth one on the rate it can sustain. Globus is being priced as the second, and for once the recent record gives that framing reason. The first quarter of fiscal 2026 put up $759.9 million in revenue, up 27% as reported and 25.5% in constant currency, with non-GAAP earnings per share of $1.12 up nearly 65% year over year. Strip out acquired revenue and the base business still grew 13.2%, led by U.S. spine, which by itself reached $347 million, up 10% and marking 58 consecutive weeks of growth. The price embeds a demanding bet on how long that pace persists, but not on the rate itself, which is an easier bet than most premium med-tech names carry.
The durability comes from owning the robot. Globus is an engineering-driven company that describes itself in its filing as having a history of rapidly developing and commercializing products across musculoskeletal care, and its Excelsius navigation and robotics platform is the flywheel: every system placed pulls implant sales through it, and the company offers flexibility to customers for our capital equipment within our Excelsius ecosystem by offering capital sales and leasing arrangements. In the quarter it also won two 510(k) clearances for a fully integrated, patient-specific lumbar implant suite, the kind of pipeline that keeps the ecosystem expanding. Razor-and-blade economics in spine is a real moat, because once a robot is installed in an operating room the surgeon's implant choice follows it.
The financial shape backs the growth story rather than straining it. Adjusted gross margin reached 69.2% in the quarter, helped by fixed-cost leverage and supply-chain work, and the company carries net cash above $560 million rather than the leverage most acquisitive med-tech names take on. That balance sheet is what let Globus raise full-year EPS guidance to $4.70 to $4.80 from $4.40 to $4.50 while holding revenue guidance of $3.18 billion to $3.22 billion, a bottom-line raise without a top-line lift, which signals integration and mix doing the work. A growth-stage profile, a real moat, and a clean balance sheet is the combination the price is paying for.
Bear Case
The variable with the most leverage over a spine company, and the one a growth price tends to ignore, is who pays for the surgery and how much. The 2026 reimbursement backdrop for spine is genuinely shifting: the CMS Medicare physician fee schedule that took effect January 1 carries valuation risk for complex spine procedures, the kind surgeons' own societies have flagged as their greatest concern for the year, while CMS is moving hundreds of musculoskeletal procedure codes off the inpatient-only list and pushing care toward ambulatory surgery centers under a mandatory value-based model that holds specialists accountable for the total cost of care. None of that shows up in a trailing growth rate, but all of it bears on the price a hospital or surgeon can capture per case, and therefore on the implant pricing and capital-equipment budgets Globus depends on. A price embedding years of high-teens growth is a price that assumes the reimbursement environment stays neutral, and 2026 is the year it stops being neutral.
The second concern is how Globus got this big this fast. The reported 27% revenue growth in the first quarter is flattered by acquired revenue; the base business grew 13.2%. The difference is the NuVasive and Nevro mergers, funded substantially with stock, which is why the share count has compounded near 7.3% a year. Growth bought with equity is not the same as growth earned, and the company's own filing is blunt about the risk, warning of the failure to achieve any revenue synergies or efficiencies anticipated to result from the NuVasive and Nevro Mergers, the failure of which would result in the anticipated benefits of the NuVasive and Nevro Mergers not being realized in the timeframe expected. The Nevro line is already showing the strain: it contributed $82.7 million in the quarter, down 17.1% from the prior quarter, and management has said it will stay lumpy while integration continues. Dilution today is justified only if the synergies arrive tomorrow, and that timeline is management's to prove, not the buyer's to assume.
The valuation gives that bet limited room. At today's price the market pays about 28 times company-wide operating income and needs the current pace to hold for roughly five years; history says only about 35% of comparable fast-growers sustained that long. The methods split tellingly: the earnings-power lens, which values the existing profit stream without crediting future growth, reads the price as expensive, while only the forward-growth and peer-multiple lenses reach it. That is the durability question in a nutshell. If reimbursement pressure or a stumble in the Nevro integration slows the base-business growth even modestly, the premium that rests on persistence compresses, and the net-cash balance sheet, real as it is, does not protect the multiple from a growth disappointment.
Valuation
What the price is betting is clear and, unusually for a premium med-tech name, not extreme on the rate. Inverted, today's price implies the company holds its current operating-profit growth near its self-funding ceiling for about five years. The recent record makes the rate believable; the demand is on persistence, and history says only about 35% of comparable fast-growers kept that pace for that long. This is a durability question, not a growth-rate question, which is a meaningfully gentler bet than the one most names priced this richly carry.
The families of method split along a clean line, and the line is itself the signal. The peer-multiple lens reads a spine and device-sector multiple as cheaper than where Globus trades, and the forward-growth methods sit at or below the price, one of them reaching it only by holding today's EV/EBITDA flat across the forecast. The earnings-power methods pull the other way and call the price expensive, because they value the existing profit stream without crediting the growth the forward methods do. The asset-value lenses land well below the price, anchored on a book value near $34 per share. Put plainly, relative multiples and the growth-DCF justify the price while the no-growth earnings lens calls it rich, which is exactly the pattern a durable grower produces when the static frames cannot see the runway.
Solvency removes the usual downside amplifier. This is a corporate balance sheet carrying net cash above $560 million, not the leverage acquisitive med-tech names typically take on, so a growth stumble would hit the multiple rather than threaten the company. The offsetting wrinkle is dilution: the share count has grown near 7.3% a year to fund the mergers, so per-share progress depends on the acquired revenue and synergies pulling their weight. A buyer at this price is underwriting time more than rate, and a balance sheet strong enough to wait, against a reimbursement and integration backdrop that will decide whether the wait pays.
Catalysts
Globus Medical's first quarter of fiscal 2026 was the central recent event and a strong one. Revenue reached $759.9 million, up 27% as reported and 25.5% in constant currency, with non-GAAP EPS of $1.12, up nearly 65% year over year; the base business excluding acquired revenue grew 13.2%, led by U.S. spine, which reached $347 million on 58 consecutive weeks of growth, with contributions from enabling technology and international spine. Adjusted gross margin came in at 69.2% on fixed-cost leverage and supply-chain initiatives. On the print, management raised full-year 2026 EPS guidance to $4.70 to $4.80 from $4.40 to $4.50 and reaffirmed revenue guidance of $3.18 billion to $3.22 billion. A bottom-line raise without a revenue lift points to integration and mix, not just volume, doing the work.
The Nevro integration is the live operational story. Nevro contributed $82.7 million in the quarter, down 17.1% from the prior quarter, and management has said the line will stay lumpy in the near term while integration continues but expects improvement later in 2026. The former NuVasive product lines, including the PRECICE limb-lengthening portfolio, now run on Globus-manufactured supply, which is the source of the synergy story the guidance raise leans on. The company also gained two 510(k) clearances for a fully integrated, patient-specific lumbar implant suite, feeding the robotics pipeline.
The forward catalysts are reimbursement and the pace of integration. The 2026 CMS physician fee schedule and the shift of spine procedures toward ambulatory surgery centers under a mandatory value-based model are the external variables with the most leverage on case economics, and they are arriving precisely as the price assumes a neutral backdrop. Analyst sentiment has stayed constructive, with consensus targets sitting above the current price, so the next several prints carry the burden of showing the base business holds as the market re-prices the surgery.
Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)
Globus Medical (consolidated) (reported)
- ZBH (ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- ATEC (Alphatec Holdings, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- SYK (STRYKER CORP)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- SNN (Smith & Nephew plc)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- ISRG (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- EW (EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- MMSI (MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS INC)
- (no filing in the citation store)
- PEN (Penumbra, Inc)
- (no filing in the citation store)
Methodology Note
- Priced-in inversion: the valuation is inverted on the current price to recover the operating-income growth, duration, and steady-state margin the price embeds (ROE for financials, FFO growth for REITs).
- Valuation x-ray: the valuation models, grouped into four families (asset, earnings, relative, growth). Each model is expressed as a price/FV ratio (distance from price), not a point fair-value estimate. The spread across families is the disagreement.
- Solvency: net cash/debt, net-debt-to-NOPAT, interest coverage, and share-count CAGR from EDGAR financials (net debt / FFO and fixed-charge coverage for REITs; regulatory-capital framing for financials).
- Peer cohorts: per-segment comparables with deep-linkable SEC filing citations.
Fundamentals sourced from SEC EDGAR filings. Current price from Databento. The priced-in inversion and valuation x-ray are computed by the boothcheck engine; narrative composed by AI from the structured data.
Sources
GMED FY2026 10-K · Globus Medical Q1 FY2026 earnings release, May 2026 · Globus Medical Q1 FY2026 earnings call, May 2026 · Benzinga analyst ratings, 2026