For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score +18 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 78 · Value -32 · Sentiment -55 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $54.54 vs $51.49 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Boston Scientific Corporation
BSX NYSEBoston Scientific Corporation is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad portfolio of minimally invasive medical devices. The company focuses on devices used in cardiovascular care, structural heart therapies, electrophysiology, peripheral interventions, and cardiac rhythm management, as well as solutions for endoscopy, urology, pelvic health, pain management, and neuromodulation. Its products include implants, catheters, mapping and ablation systems, diagnostic tools, and various disposable instruments that are used by clinicians during interventional procedures. Boston Scientific organizes its operations into major business segments such as Cardiovascular and MedSurg, reflecting its concentration in heart and vascular therapies alongside surgical and specialty care areas like endoscopy and urology. The company serves hospitals, clinics, outpatient facilities, and physician offices in approximately 130 countries, distributing products directly and through specialized medical device channels. Founded in 1979 and headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts, Boston Scientific today plays a central role in enabling modern, procedure-based care across multiple therapeutic specialties worldwide.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 1.94
Total Equity: $24.47B
Shares: 1,494,500,000
Total Debt: $299.00M
Cash: $1.97B
EBITDA: $4.98B
Total Debt: $299.00M
Cash: $1.97B
Revenue: $20.07B
Revenue: $20.07B
Revenue: $20.07B
Total Equity: $24.47B
Tax Rate: 14.6%
Equity: $24.47B
Total Debt: $299.00M
Cash: $1.97B
Current Liabilities: $5.44B
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $299.00M
Total Equity: $24.47B
Shares: 1,494,500,000
Shares: 1,494,500,000
CapEx: -$876.00M
Shares: 1,494,500,000
Stock Price: $45.70
Net Income: $2.89B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 2:40pm (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $11.9B | $12.7B | $14.2B | $16.7B | $20.1B |
| Cost of Revenue | $3.7B | $4.0B | $4.3B | $5.3B | $6.2B |
| Gross Profit | $8.2B | $8.7B | $9.9B | $11.5B | $13.9B |
| Operating Expenses | $7.0B | $7.1B | $7.6B | $8.9B | $10.2B |
| Operating Income | $1.2B | $1.6B | $2.3B | $2.6B | $3.6B |
| Net Income | $1.0B | $698.0M | $1.6B | $1.8B | $2.9B |
| EBITDA | $2.3B | $2.8B | $3.5B | $3.9B | $5.0B |
| EPS | $0.69 | $0.45 | $1.08 | $1.26 | $1.96 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $0.69 | $0.45 | $1.07 | $1.25 | $1.94 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 2:23pm (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $1.9B | $928.0M | $865.0M | $414.0M | $2.0B |
| Total Current Assets | $6.3B | $5.8B | $6.5B | $6.9B | $8.8B |
| Total Assets | $32.2B | $32.5B | $35.1B | $39.4B | $43.7B |
| Current Liabilities | $4.3B | $3.8B | $4.9B | $6.4B | $5.4B |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $15.6B | $14.9B | $15.6B | $17.4B | $19.2B |
| Total Equity | $16.6B | $17.6B | $19.5B | $22.0B | $24.5B |
| Retained Earnings | -$1.4B | -$750.0M | $819.0M | $2.7B | $5.6B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 2:40pm (24d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $1.9B | $1.5B | $2.5B | $3.4B | $4.5B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$554.0M | -$588.0M | -$711.0M | -$790.0M | -$876.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | $1.3B | $938.0M | $1.8B | $2.6B | $3.7B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$2.3B | -$1.5B | -$1.8B | -$4.6B | -$1.6B |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $0 | $3.3B | $0 | $2.1B | $1.6B |
| Dividends Paid | -$55.0M | -$55.0M | -$28.0M | $0 | — |
| Stock Buybacks | $0 | $0 | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $173.0M | -$1.0B | -$70.0M | -$450.0M | $1.5B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 2:40pm (24d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +6.7% | +12.3% | +17.6% | +19.9% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +6.7% | +13.4% | +16.1% | +20.6% |
| Operating Income Growth | +37.5% | +42.1% | +11.1% | +38.8% |
| Net Income Growth | -32.9% | +128.1% | +16.0% | +56.7% |
| EBITDA Growth | +21.5% | +27.1% | +9.4% | +28.6% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-23 02:49Recovery pays +23%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 19%. Ratio 1.2:1.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($51.49) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +20% | 20.1% | $63.48 | +23% |
| Base — stabilizes | +13% | 17.5% | $45.58 | -11% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +7% | 14.9% | $31.93 | -38% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +8% | 19.2% | $41.60 | -19% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-17AI compresses the most expensive non-manufacturing parts of medtech: trial design, patient selection, regulatory documentation, complaint handling and field-force targeting — with an SG&A-heavy P&L and 69% gross margin, savings land in operating margin rather than in the cost of goods.
Payer- and provider-side AI industrializes utilization management: automated prior-auth review, appropriateness algorithms and cost-effectiveness screening can throttle procedure volumes and per-device pricing on exactly the elective interventional categories BSX has been gaining share in.
Whether AI in the clinical funnel is net volume-creating (algorithmic AF/structural-heart detection pulling more patients into procedures) or net volume-gating (payer AI denying or steering them); watch category volume growth in EP and structural heart against reimbursement/prior-auth policy changes.
PMA-grade clinical evidence, sterile high-volume catheter manufacturing, physician training and case-support relationships, and an installed base of implanted devices with recurring follow-on economics — none of which fall out of a model.
AI Lens thesis
BSX sells physical objects consumed inside a human body under regulatory and liability cover, so the automatable share of its value proposition is small; AI's real transmission runs three ways — (1) inward, cutting R&D, trial, quality and commercial overhead on a P&L that just moved from 10% to 18% operating margin, (2) into the product, where mapping/ablation guidance, imaging interpretation and remote-monitoring algorithms increasingly decide which platform a physician standardizes on, and (3) at the reimbursement gate, where cheap analytics make payers far better at questioning procedure appropriateness and price. The scarce things — approvals, evidence, manufacturing, physician trust — get relatively MORE valuable as software becomes abundant, which is why the net read is favorable but modest; the risk is not disruption of the device, it is AI-armed buyers squeezing the price of it.
What the market may be underestimating
Upside Remote-monitoring and procedural datasets from the implanted/EP base can convert into subscription-like algorithmic services and better trial enrollment, shortening time-to-evidence for new indications — a structural cost advantage over smaller rivals that AI amplifies rather than erases.
Downside AI-accelerated device design plus contract manufacturing lets focused entrants reach first-in-human faster in single categories, forcing BSX to keep buying growth at rising multiples; the acquisition treadmill, not the technology, is where value leaks.
Outcome range spread 33
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-17 16:32The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
The raw trajectory is genuinely impressive: revenue moved from $4.21B in Q3 2024 to $5.44B in Q2 2026 — that's 29% growth over seven quarters, and the four-quarter TTM run-rate is now ~$21.0B versus $16.75B for calendar 2024, a 25% lift. Net income TTM is ~$3.67B on my math (905+1,340+670+755), or ~17.5% net margin — materially above the 14.4% annual figure the canonical block cites. Operating margin scaled from 13.0% in 2022 to 18.0% in 2025 with room to run. Balance sheet is fortress-grade: $299M total debt against $1.97B cash and $24.5B equity, D/E of 0.012. FCF of $3.66B on $20B revenue is an 18% FCF margin. On these numbers alone, this is a compounder firing on all cylinders, not a "fallen angel."
Where I part company with the models: the synthesis calls this "undervalued" with a signal-adjusted fair value of $71 (+39%), and the narrative layer describes a "28% discount to intrinsic value" and a 53% drawdown from 52-week highs. I don't see the drawdown in this data — at $51.83 with $75B market cap, BSX trades at ~20x TTM earnings and ~3.6x TTM sales, which for a business compounding revenue at ~20% and earnings at ~35% is not obviously expensive but hardly a screaming discount either. The pre-flight commentary about a "53% drawdown" looks like either stale data or hallucination; nothing in the quarterly print supports a distressed setup. Meanwhile the Thesis Evaluation scores this -11 (mildly bearish) on organic-vs-M&A concerns, which directly contradicts the synthesis "undervalued" call. Both can't be right.
The contrarian case is the Thesis Evaluation's, and it deserves weight: how much of the 20% growth is Farapulse + acquired revenue versus true organic pull-through? Medtronic's PFA (Affera/Sphere-9) and J&J's Varipulse are now in market; the electrophysiology tailwind that carried BSX through 2024-2026 will face real pricing and share pressure by late 2026-2027. Q2 2026 revenue of $5.44B is only 7.3% above Q4 2025's $5.29B — sequentially, growth is already cooling, consistent with the "decelerating" quarterly trend flag. If organic growth reverts to 6-8% and margins plateau at 18%, a 20x multiple on ~$4.2B forward earnings gets you $84B market cap, or ~$58/share — modestly above spot but well below the $71 synthesis target. The insider activity is a genuine positive signal (multiple open-market purchases in May-August 2026, small dollar amounts but directionally clean, not just option exercises), and management doesn't buy shares into a cliff.
GPT Reading
What stands out to me is that the business itself is cleaner and stronger than the “fallen angel” framing implies, but the valuation is not obviously cheap enough to call this a clear mispricing. Revenue has gone from $11.89B in 2021 to $20.07B in 2025, a 69% increase in four years, while operating income rose from $1.20B to $3.61B and net income from $1.04B to $2.89B. That is not the profile of a muddling mature device company. The quarterly run-rate is also still healthy: 2026 Q2 revenue was $5.44B, up 7.5% from $5.06B a year earlier, and Q1 was $5.20B versus $4.66B, up 11.6%. Margin progression matters more than the top line here: annual operating margin improved from 10.1% in 2021 to 18.0% in 2025, gross margin is a strong 69.0%, and free cash flow hit $3.66B in 2025, roughly 18% of sales. On the balance sheet, $1.97B of cash against just $299M of debt is exceptionally conservative for a $75B medtech. This is a high-quality compounder with real earnings power, not a balance-sheet story or a turnaround.
But the stock price already reflects a lot of that quality. At $51.83, the company is valued at about 26.5x earnings, 3.8x sales, and roughly 14.9x EV/EBITDA. Those are not extreme multiples for a medtech leader, but they are also not distressed multiples that let you ignore normalization risk. The last four quarters of revenue were $4.66B, $5.06B, $5.07B, $5.29B, then $5.20B and $5.44B in the first half of 2026; that is still growth, but the cadence looks more like a business settling into high-single-digit to low-double-digit expansion than a name that should compound at a premium forever. Net margins remain somewhat uneven quarter to quarter, ranging from 12.7% to 25.7% over the last four reported quarters, which tells you this is not yet a perfectly smoothed annuity despite the cash generation. If I annualize the first-half 2026 net income of about $2.25B, BSX is tracking well, but not so far above 2025 that the current multiple becomes plainly cheap. My read is that the market is paying a fair premium for a very good business.
The strongest argument against my caution is straightforward: the company may deserve a higher multiple because the growth and margin trajectory are still better than “mature earner” language suggests. A 2025 net margin of 14.4% on $20.07B of revenue, paired with ROIC of 13.5% and virtually no leverage, gives management room to keep compounding through both innovation and tuck-in deployment. Quarterly net income has also stepped up materially from $468M in 2024 Q3 to $905M in 2026 Q2, and 2026 Q1’s $1.34B profit shows there may be more operating leverage in the model than a simple steady-state framework captures. If the current run-rate produces something like $21.2B-$21.5B of 2026 revenue and over $3.2B of net income, then today’s P/E on forward earnings would slide closer to the low 20s for a debt-light medtech platform with strong cash conversion. Add in repeated open-market purchases in May and August 2026, and the insider tape leans supportive rather than cautious.
I weigh those bullish points differently because I don’t see enough evidence here that BSX is under-earned relative to its current valuation by a wide margin. The revenue acceleration from 2023 to 2025 was exceptional, but the quarterly sequence in 2026 so far suggests a normalization path rather than another leg up. The company is excellent, but excellence at 3.7x revenue and 26x earnings is not automatically undervaluation. For me to become more constructive, I’d want to see either a cheaper entry point—something in the mid-$40s, where the multiple better compensates for growth normalization—or proof that 2026 can sustain double-digit revenue growth with net margins consistently above 16%-17% absent one-off quarterly spikes. If the next two quarters show revenue comfortably above $5.5B and $5.6B with annualized net income power moving toward $3.4B-$3.6B, I’d upgrade this to undervalued. If growth slips toward mid-single digits while margins stall around the 2025 average, then even $51-$52 will have been full.
Grok Reading
The raw numbers describe a medtech compounder that has stepped up a weight class, not a fading franchise. Revenue climbed from $12.68B in 2022 to $16.75B in 2024 and $20.07B in 2025 — an 18.7% CAGR — and the last four reported quarters run $5.07B, $5.29B, $5.20B, and $5.44B, still printing high-teens year-over-year. Net income more than kept pace: $1.85B to $2.89B in the latest full year, with earnings CAGR near 35% and free cash flow at $3.66B on only $876M of capex. Gross margin sits at 69% and operating margin at 18%; the balance sheet is effectively unlevered at $299M of debt against $1.97B cash and a 0.012 debt-to-equity ratio. At $51.83, the stock clears 26.5x trailing earnings, 3.8x sales, and 14.9x EV/EBITDA — multiples that would be rich for a no-growth industrial but are ordinary for a scaled device business still expanding revenue nearly 20% with mid-teens ROIC and a ~4.9% FCF yield. Insider activity leans constructive (multiple open-market purchases in May–August 2026), and the cash conversion quality is high. The story the ledger tells is durable installed-base cash generation plus a still-live product cycle, not a mature earner already priced for perfection.
Where the quantitative stack disagrees with itself is exactly the opportunity. The valuation synthesis flags a composite near $53.50 and a signal-adjusted fair value around $71 versus a ~$52 tape, while the market-forces overlay claims the multiple already “fully prices perfection” and the thesis engine scores a mild −11 on M&A-flattered growth and competitive retaliation. Those bear weights are real but over-indexed: sequential revenue is still rising in absolute dollars, net margins have structurally lifted from the low teens into the mid-teens, and the fortress balance sheet removes the usual medtech financing and integration distress risk. A 26x P/E on 20% top-line growth and 50%+ earnings growth is not a perfection multiple; it is a market that has already haircut the Farapulse/structural-heart narrative into a fallen-angel discount. The 28% gap to intrinsic estimates is larger than what modest organic deceleration or normal competitive noise from Medtronic and Abbott should justify for a business this cash-generative.
The strongest opposing case is straightforward and numerate. If the 19.9% recent revenue growth is heavily acquisition-inflated and organic run-rate halves toward high-single digits by 2027, a 26x earnings multiple and 3.7x sales multiple become full-to-expensive for a steady-state cash cow — especially with quarterly net margin swinging from 25.7% in Q1 2026 to 16.6% in Q2, which hints at lumpy mix or one-time items rather than clean operating leverage. Sell-side and hedge-fund skeptics will correctly note that Farapulse’s electrophysiology moat will be tested, reimbursement and procedure-volume recovery remain policy-sensitive, and the “mature earner” archetype rarely sustains mid-teens ROE expansion forever. I weigh those risks as pricing already embedded rather than as a reason to demand a further discount: the company still converts nearly $3.7B of FCF, carries almost no net debt, and shows insider accumulation rather than distribution. Growth normalization is a valuation trim, not a thesis break, unless organic growth collapses and margins compress together.
I would flip to neutral or bearish if two consecutive quarters show organic revenue growth below ~8%, if operating margin settles sustainably under 15%, or if EP share data show Farapulse losing ground decisively to Abbott/Medtronic while management cuts medium-term guidance. Until those prints appear, the discount looks excessive relative to the cash and growth still on the page.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Boston Scientific shows a genuinely strong operating trajectory: revenue up from 11.89B in 2021 to 20.07B in 2025 (roughly 14% CAGR, accelerating to 20% in the latest year), with operating margin expanding from 10.1% to 18.0% and net income nearly tripling from 1.04B to 2.89B. Gross margin has been rock-steady around 68-69%, indicating pricing power and stable mix despite scale-up. Cash generation is high quality — FCF grew from 1.32B to 3.66B, and OCF/NI of 1.8x with accruals at -3.1% of assets suggests earnings are more conservative than cash reality, not the reverse. Balance sheet is sound rather than fortress: 1.97B liquid cash and 1.67B net cash against a business throwing off 3.66B FCF annually, plus an Altman Z of 3.35 in the safe zone. Dilution is mild — diluted share count crept from 1.43B to 1.49B (about 1% CAGR) with SBC at 1.5% of revenue and effectively no buyback offset, so per-share value is protected mainly by earnings growth outrunning share creep rather than by capital return. Insider behavior is a positive tell: five open-market P-purchases in 2025-26 by multiple directors/officers (Habiger three times, Pegus, Ludwig) totaling ~650K, with zero open-market sales. That is unusual for a large-cap medtech and aligns with the fundamental acceleration. The main caveats are qualitative — durability of the electrophysiology/Farapulse-driven growth surge, and modest net cash cushion relative to size — neither of which is a quality defect, just a reason to reserve the top rungs.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Product/segment concentration in the 2025 revenue acceleration — how much is Farapulse/EP vs base business
- Debt maturity ladder and gross debt level behind the 1.67B net cash figure
- M&A cadence and goodwill/intangibles as a share of assets — how much of growth is acquired
- Litigation and product-liability reserves (mesh, other legacy exposure) in the 10-K
- Any customer, GPO, or geographic concentration disclosed in the 10-K
- Whether SBC net of taxes truly represents only 1.5% of revenue economic cost
The composite fair value of $53.54 sits about 4% above the $51.49 price, and the signal-adjusted $71.39 leans on an anchored-PE of $97.49 that looks like a runaway multiple output - I would not underwrite it. The DCF at $47.88 and an EPV floor of $20.92 bracket the honest range, and averaging the two credible methods lands in the high $40s to low $50s, essentially where the stock trades. Quality is high and earnings are clean, which supports the upper end of that band but does not create a gap.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Forward organic growth guide for interventional cardiology and structural heart (Watchman, Farapulse pull-through)
- Operating margin trajectory - are the 2025 gains sustainable or mix-driven
- Net leverage and M&A cadence - thin net cash limits optionality if a deal is needed
- Any reimbursement or CMS coverage decisions affecting EP or structural heart
The macro backdrop is mildly risk-on with VIX at 14.3, but with beta 0.57 BSX is largely insulated from tape moves in either direction — the market regime is close to a non-factor here. What actually presses on the stock is the active fallen-angel narrative: shares are down roughly 50% over the past year, news flow explicitly frames the name as 'undervalued after a 50% fall,' and the June-quarter print paired a completed 2.7% buyback with a LOWER 2026 growth guide. That combination — capital return alongside a cut outlook — is exactly the sort of mixed signal that keeps a de-rating going, because it confirms the bear read that management sees slowing growth in key businesses. Analyst and fund commentary (Parnassus flagging a growth slowdown) is leaning bearish at the margin, and peer Edwards is being framed as the premium-growth alternative, which siphons the structural-heart narrative away from BSX. Narrative intensity is only moderate and durability is moderate, so this is a persistent crosswind rather than a collapse. Net: sentiment pressure is negative but not extreme — a real headwind on a name whose story is stuck in the penalty box while the tape itself is benign.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether Q3 print stabilizes or further cuts the 2026 growth trajectory
- Any sell-side upgrades or target-price revisions in the next 4-6 weeks after the buyback completion
- Structural-heart share-shift commentary versus EW at the next medtech conference
- Whether fund-letter tone (Parnassus and peers) shifts from 'slowdown' to 'inflection'
BSX sells physical objects consumed inside a human body under regulatory and liability cover, so the automatable share of its value proposition is small; AI's real transmission runs three ways — (1) inward, cutting R&D, trial, quality and commercial overhead on a P&L that just moved from 10% to 18% operating margin, (2) into the product, where mapping/ablation guidance, imaging interpretation and remote-monitoring algorithms increasingly decide which platform a physician standardizes on, and (3) at the reimbursement gate, where cheap analytics make payers far better at questioning procedure appropriateness and price. The scarce things — approvals, evidence, manufacturing, physician trust — get relatively MORE valuable as software becomes abundant, which is why the net read is favorable but modest; the risk is not disruption of the device, it is AI-armed buyers squeezing the price of it.
None surfaced.
Verify before trusting this (8)
- EP and structural heart procedure volumes
- AF and aortic stenosis diagnosis rates
- GLP-1 effects on cardiac procedure mix
- Trial enrollment speed vs peers
- Manufacturing capacity expansions
- Share of accounts on exclusive contracts
- Pulsed-field ablation adoption curve
- Drug therapy displacing interventions
Medical devices is a structurally growing, demographically underwritten category, but it is exiting the post-COVID procedure catch-up phase, so category growth is normalizing toward mid-single digits while hospital budgets face reimbursement and rate pressure. Within that, the money is migrating toward new interventional modalities — pulsed-field ablation, left-atrial closure, transcatheter structural heart — and BSX sits on the receiving end of that migration, which is why it is out-growing its industry by double-digit percentage points. The forward question is not whether the world wants these procedures (it does) but whether BSX keeps the disproportionate share of them once every large rival fields a comparable platform. Base case: the world's demand keeps BSX growing above category for another year or two, then the competitive field pulls its growth rate down toward high-single/low-double digits with margin expansion doing the heavy lifting on earnings.
When we made this prediction on Aug 18, 2026, BSX was $51.43. We expect it to be $56.20 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $44.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 18, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.