Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: FTV stock price vs WAT: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at WAT's multiple
Needs WAT P/E.
Implied fair value · at FTV's multiple
Needs FTV P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
16 period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
Fortive Corporation · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Waters Corporation · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO
FTV vs EMR
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC
FTV vs HON
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC
FTV vs ROK
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
FTV vs KEYS
TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES INC
FTV vs TDY
AMETEK INC/
FTV vs AME
DANAHER CORP /DE/
FTV vs DHR
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
FTV vs A
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC.
FTV vs BIO
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC.
FTV vs TMO
BRUKER CORP
FTV vs BRKR
BIO-TECHNE Corp
FTV vs TECH
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe FTV’s revenue decline is temporary and margins can stabilize without further leverage stress, then a small position could be justified because the P/E discount to WAT is modest and the current price is near fair value; otherwise, WAT appears structurally stronger on growth, returns, and leverage, making FTV a neutral relative pick rather than a compelling buy.
FTV trades at a slightly lower P/E than WAT and sits near the upper end of its own historical trading band, so the current valuation looks close to fair rather than deeply discounted. The implied price of $60.66 versus the current price of $59.21 suggests only 2.5% upside, while WAT-implied range is far above the market price but likely reflects WAT’s higher quality and multiple profile.
Supporting Metrics
