Which is more profitable, 3M or Stryker?

3M keeps more of every sale as profit.

Which grows faster, 3M or Stryker?

Stryker grew its sales faster in recent years.

Which is cheaper, 3M or Stryker?

3M costs less for each unit of yearly profit (lower P/E).

Which has less debt, 3M or Stryker?

3M would need fewer years of earnings to pay off its debt.

3MMMMvs

StrykerSYK

3M vs Stryker stock

Side by side in plain words: who keeps more of its sales, grows faster, costs less and owes less.

In one sentence

3M is more profitable, is cheaper for its profits and has less debt. Stryker grows faster.

Side by side

	3M	Stryker
	$94.9 billion	$118 billion
	13.0%	12.9%
	−5.0%	+11.8%
	29.2×	36.3×
	1.1 years	1.9 years
	24.1%	10.8%
	2.0%	1.1%

Open 3M Open Stryker

How we compare

Four contests with the same rules as each stock page: profit kept from sales (higher wins), yearly sales growth across the last reports, up to five years (higher wins), price per unit of yearly profit (lower P/E wins; a company without profit loses) and debt in years of earnings (lower wins). A winner is only named when both companies have the number.

More comparisons: 3M vs Trane Technologies · 3M vs Boston Scientific · 3M vs Cintas · 3M vs Fastenal · Stryker vs Merck & · Stryker vs Roche · Stryker vs Thermo Fisher Scientific · Stryker vs UnitedHealth