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
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Rule-based classification of fundamentals against the sector. Not a price forecast and not investment advice.
Weak signals across every dimension
Get notified when we ship meaningful updates. No spam, no daily noise.
0 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.
Mixed signals
1 signal unavailable
Profitability
3/4
Debt & liquidity
2/3
Efficiency
0/2
Debt is the most telling number here: Debt/EBITDA of 4.5× runs +45% above the sector median 3.1×, a structural weight that sits alongside an FCF yield of 3.2% — -16% below the sector median 3.8%. FCF did recover sharply year over year, rising 0.7% against a sector median of -7.7%, though that rebound starts from a weak base rather than signaling a sustained shift. The F-Score of 5/9 reflects the mixed picture: profitability sub-scores hold up, but the efficiency component scores zero, and the composite of 41/100 against the sector median trails the broader Health Care field. Consensus models earnings growth ahead, yet the forward PEG reads as stretched — the market is pricing in a recovery that the realized fundamentals have not yet confirmed, and the beat rate over eight quarters has been uneven.
| 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 TMO reports on October 20, 2026, track whether FCF growth holds above the sector median after a 109% gap, and whether Debt/EBITDA, currently 45% above the median at 3.06×, shows any reduction. The F-Score profitability block at 3/4 is worth monitoring for any slippage in asset turnover or return signals.
On SEC EDGAR, open TMO's most recent 10-K and focus on the capital allocation section and long-term debt disclosures. With Debt/EBITDA at 3.06× and FCF yield 16% below the sector median, management's stated priorities for debt repayment versus acquisition spending are material to the leverage picture.
In section 06, pick two or three Health Care companies from the alphabetical table and line up one metric — Debt/EBITDA or FCF yield are the most relevant given TMO's weak signals. No company in the table is ranked; the exercise is to place TMO's 3.06× debt ratio and 3.78% FCF yield in a broader sector context of your own choosing.
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: +5%-13%
Over 4 years: 4.383.664.45
Over 4 years: +0%+4%
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 | 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 Scientific Inc. | 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.