Waters Corp (WAT)
Health Care · Life Sciences Tools & Services · US stock · S&P 500 component
$455.59
▼ -1.88 (0.41%)
Fair valueFair
$495 +8.6% to fair value
$247fair band $421–$600$742
Day's range
$449.09 – $464.94
52-week range
$282.77 – $464.94
About Waters Corp
Waters makes analytical instruments and software that laboratories use to separate, identify and measure chemical and biological substances. Its products centre on liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, and it also offers thermal analysis equipment through TA Instruments. Customers include pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, industrial and food testing laboratories, environmental agencies and academic researchers. It also supplies consumables, columns and service plans for its installed systems.
Instruments and recurring consumables, software and service contracts generated revenue of $4.6 billion over the last twelve months. Revenue has grown at 2.1% a year across the last three years. The operating margin is 7.1%, the business earns 1% on the capital invested in it, and net debt is 14.9 times EBITDA. No dividend is paid. On the site's X-Ray Score it receives 33 out of 100.
Price chart
52-wk range $282.77 – $464.94Volume 1,267,653Daily, split-adjusted
Vitals
Market cap$44.7B
52-week range$282.77 – $464.94
Volume (last day)1,267,653
P/E (TTM)–
EBIT / EV yield0.7%
Free-cash-flow yield–
Dividend yieldNo dividend
Revenue (TTM)$4.6B
Net income (TTM)–
Operating margin7.1%
Return on capital1.3%
Debt incl. leases$5.5B
Cash & securities$539M
Debt = borrowings plus lease liabilities. Cash & securities = cash, equivalents and short-term marketable securities (long-term securities are not counted, so net cash can be understated for companies that hold large long-term investments). Net debt = debt minus cash & securities. Source: latest SEC 10-Q/10-K. EBIT / EV yield = operating profit divided by market cap plus net debt.
Fair value estimate
$495middle half of models $409 – $545
Fair
+8.6% to fair value
Average of the 9 valuation models that pass our checks: multiples, discounted cash flow, dividend discount and earnings power value. A model more than 100% above or 60% below the price is left out as unrealistic. Model uncertainty is Medium, based on how far apart the models are. Undervalued or Overvalued means the gap to fair value is more than 17.5%.
Price $456
Undervalued < $421Fair $421 – $600Overvalued > $600
P/B multiple
$536
P/S multiple
$409
EV/EBITDA multiple
$355
EV/EBIT multiple
$347
EV/revenue multiple
$418
10-year DCF, EBITDA exit
$694
5-year DCF, EBITDA exit
$647
10-year DCF, revenue exit
$503
5-year DCF, revenue exit
$545
10-year DCF, growth exit · not used
$43
5-year DCF, growth exit · not used
$24
Earnings power value · not used
$100
A model estimate, not a price target or recommendation. Inputs: risk-free 5.13%, equity risk premium 4.30% (Damodaran). How it works.
What this means
Weak business, fairly priced
The price sits inside our fair-value band. A high score does not guarantee a good outcome; it shifts the odds a little. Use the checklist as a prompt for your own research.
Before you invest · decision checklist
Ticked boxes are filled in from our data; the rest are yours to answer.
The five-lens scan
Every score explained in one sentence, ranked against Health Care peers. Open a lens to see the numbers behind it.
Strong: 70 to 100Fair: 50 to 69Weak: under 50No score: not enough data
Valuation
Weak
45/100
Expensive against its sector on earnings and cash flow.
See the numbers →
EBIT / EV yield0.7%
Fair value vs price1.1×
Growth
Weak
29/100
Growing slower than most of its sector.
See the numbers →
Revenue growth (3y)2.1%
EPS growth (3y)-2.8%
Growth consistency70%
Profitability
Weak
32/100
Earns lower returns on its capital than most peers.
See the numbers →
Return on invested capital1.3%
Operating margin7.1%
Financial health
Weak
22/100
Balance sheet is more stretched than most peers.
See the numbers →
Piotroski F-Score4 / 9
Net debt / EBITDA14.9×
Interest cover2.2×
Dividends
None
–/100
Pays no dividend.
See the numbers →
Quarterly results: last 6 quarters
-11.6%
Jun '25
+20.8%
Sep '25
+20.9%
Sep '25
+20.9%
Dec '25
+64.3%
Apr '26
+105.7%
Jul '26
Revenue against the same quarter a year earlier. Latest quarter revenue $1.6B, diluted EPS $-1.39.
Compare with peers
MTD Mettler Toledo Interna...47 TECH BIO-TECHNE Corp45 IQV Iqvia Holdings Inc.43 A Agilent Technologies,...40Other Life Sciences Tools & Services companies by X-Ray Score.
SWOT analysis: Waters Corp
Strengthsinside the company
- No standout strength in the figures we track.
Weaknessesinside the company
- Return on invested capital is only 1.3% (median 9.1% for industry peers), so the business earns little above its cost of capital.
- Operating margin of 7.1% is thin against 20.0% for industry peers.
- Net debt is 14.9x EBITDA, above the 3x level that lenders usually watch.
- Operating profit covers interest only 2.2x.
Opportunitiesvaluation and setting
- Revenue growth picked up to 7.0% last year from 2.1% a year over three years.
- Price momentum is strong on the weekly and monthly signals (trends can reverse).
Threatsvaluation and setting
- Heavy debt makes profits sensitive to interest rates and refinancing conditions.
Written by fixed rules from the figures on this page and the peer table below: filings, our fair value, the sector climate and the price trend. It summarises the data, it is not a forecast or advice.
Compare WAT with peers and sector
Medians of 8 Life Sciences Tools & Services peers and of 59 Health Care stocks in our universe.
Largest peers (X-Ray Score): TMO 34, DHR 30, A 40, IQV 43, ILMN 39, MTD 47.
| Metric | WAT | Peers | Sector |
|---|---|---|---|
| X-Ray Score (out of 100) | 33 | 40 | 49 |
| Valuation | 45 | 23 | 55 |
| Growth | 29 | 28 | 48 |
| Profitability | 32 | 49 | 51 |
| Financial health | 22 | 45 | 48 |
| Dividends | – | 45 | 51 |
Sector leaders: highest X-Ray Score in Health Care
WAT ranks #54 of 60 in Health Care and #7 of 9 in Life Sciences Tools & Services by X-Ray Score. A higher score is stronger on our five pillars; it is a ranking of facts, not a forecast.
Green means better than the peer median, red worse (only where a higher or lower figure is clearly better). A dash means too few companies report the figure. P/E, EV/EBITDA and price changes are not graded: a different level is not good or bad by itself.
Factor ratings for WAT
Each factor is rated by where WAT stands among the 60 Health Care stocks in our universe.
Rating against the sector
Goodthe top third of these stocks
Averagethe middle third of these stocks
Badthe bottom third of these stocks
"Beats" is the share of those stocks it is ahead of.
Against its own history
The last columns set today's figure against the company's own median of its last five financial years:
▲ Betterbetter than its usual level
▼ Worseworse than its usual level
≈ In linewithin its usual range
For valuation factors Good means cheaper than most of the sector and Better means cheaper than usual for this company, which is not the same as a bargain.
In total: 1 Good · 2 Average · 10 Bad of 13
Growth: 0 · 1 · 2
Profitability: 0 · 0 · 2
Financial strength: 1 · 0 · 3
Valuation: 0 · 1 · 2
Efficiency: 0 · 0 · 1
| Factor | WAT | Rating | Sector median | Own 5-year median | Against own history |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth | |||||
| Revenue growth, 3 years a year | +2.1% | Bad beats 29% | +5.5% | – | – |
| Revenue growth, last year | +7.0% | Average beats 48% | +7.1% | +6.7% | ≈ In line |
| EPS growth, 3 years a year | −2.8% | Bad beats 25% | +5.0% | – | – |
| Profitability | |||||
| Operating margin | 7.1% | Bad beats 26% | 16.4% | 27.9% | ▼ Worse |
| Return on invested capital | 1.3% | Bad beats 9% | 12.2% | – | – |
| Financial strength | |||||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 14.9x | Bad beats 1% | 2.0x | 1.3x | ▼ Worse |
| Interest cover | 2.2x | Bad beats 9% | 9.4x | 11.5x | ▼ Worse |
| Current ratio | 1.86 | Good beats 69% | 1.52 | 2.22 | ▼ Worse |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 / 9 | Bad beats 10% | 6 / 9 | – | – |
| Valuation | |||||
| Price / book | 2.9x | Average beats 66% | 3.7x | 17.0x | ▲ Better |
| Price / sales | 9.6x | Bad beats 11% | 3.7x | 7.2x | ▼ Worse |
| EV / EBITDA | 150.6x | Bad beats 1% | 17.6x | 28.3x | ▼ Worse |
| Efficiency | |||||
| Days sales outstanding | 156 days | Bad beats 1% | 62 days | 89 days | ▼ Worse |
These ratings compare companies with each other and describe the past; they are not a forecast, a recommendation or part of the X-Ray Score. A factor is left out when its data is missing or meaningless (for example a P/E on negative earnings). A dash in the history columns means fewer than three usable years.
Fundamentals checklist
● 1 Good · ● 2 Average · ● 9 BadCash quality
Risk models
Altman Z''Average
Piotroski F-ScoreBad
Growth
EPS growth (3y)Bad
Revenue growth (3y)Bad
Growth consistencyBad
Balance sheet
Current ratioGood
Net debt / EBITDABad
Interest coverBad
Valuation
Fair value vs priceAverage
EBIT / EV yieldBad
Profitability
Return on invested capitalBad
Operating marginBad
Each check is graded against the company's sector, not a fixed number. Checklist score 26/100.
Financials
| FY21 | FY22 | FY23 | FY24 | FY25 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.8B | $3.0B | $3.0B | $3.0B | $3.2B |
| Operating income | $822M | $873M | $818M | $826M | $803M |
| Net income | $693M | $708M | $642M | $638M | $643M |
| Operating cash flow | $747M | $612M | $603M | $762M | $653M |
| Operating margin | 29.5% | 29.4% | 27.7% | 27.9% | 25.4% |
| Free cash flow | – | – | $442M | $620M | $540M |
| Diluted EPS | $11.17 | $11.73 | $10.84 | $10.71 | $10.76 |
Fiscal years, from SEC filings.
Technical summary
Daily
Strongly bullish
12 bullish · 3 neutral · 1 bearish
Weekly
Strongly bullish
11 bullish · 0 neutral · 1 bearish
Monthly
Strongly bullish
7 bullish · 1 neutral · 0 bearish
Moving averages (daily)
| SMA 10 | 440.3 | Bullish |
| EMA 10 | 443.1 | Bullish |
| SMA 20 | 437.7 | Bullish |
| EMA 20 | 437.1 | Bullish |
| SMA 50 | 423.3 | Bullish |
| EMA 50 | 422.8 | Bullish |
| SMA 100 | 399.5 | Bullish |
| EMA 100 | 403.3 | Bullish |
| SMA 200 | 367.4 | Bullish |
| EMA 200 | 381.9 | Bullish |
Oscillators (daily)
| RSI (14) | 64.43 | Neutral |
| MACD (12, 26) | 7.51 | Bullish |
| Momentum (12) | 4.39 | Bullish |
| Stochastic %K (14) | 78.42 | Neutral |
| Williams %R (14) | -21.58 | Neutral |
| CCI (20) | 226.7 | Bearish |
Pivot points (classic, last session)
S3 432.3 | S2 440.7 | S1 448.1 | Pivot 456.5 | R1 464.0 | R2 472.4 | R3 479.8 |
Signals describe what the chart is doing, not what to do. Moving averages: price above the average is bullish. Oscillators use the usual thresholds (RSI 30/70, Stochastic 20/80, CCI ±100, Williams %R −80/−20; MACD and momentum above zero are bullish). Weekly and monthly views use closing prices only.
ETFs that hold WAT
| ETF | Share of the fund |
|---|---|
| PHO Invesco Water Resources | 6.74% |
| TCAF T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Equ... | 1.79% |
| VOT Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth | 0.81% |
| FEGE First Eagle Global Equity | 0.73% |
| XLV Health Care Select Sector SPDR | 0.64% |
| IYH iShares U.S. Healthcare | 0.61% |
| VHT Vanguard Health Care | 0.60% |
| FHLC Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index | 0.54% |
The eight funds with the largest weight in WAT among the ETFs we cover, from each fund's latest SEC Form N-PORT (quarter-end positions, so they can be months old). All ETFs.
WAT stock splits
WAT has split its stock 2 times since 1999. The latest was a 2-for-1 split on 28 Aug 2000.
Full WAT stock split history →WAT SEC filings
8-KSEC EDGAR
Director or officer change; Other events
10-QSEC EDGAR
Quarterly report
8-KSEC EDGAR
Results of operations
8-KSEC EDGAR
Shareholder vote results
10-QSEC EDGAR
Quarterly report
8-KSEC EDGAR
Results of operations
DEF 14ASEC EDGAR
Proxy statement
8-KSEC EDGAR
Entered a material agreement; Other events
Where the numbers come from
Statements SEC EDGAR filings (10-K, 10-Q), quarters derived from year-to-date figures.
Prices end-of-day closes, split-adjusted.
Industry inputs beta, multiples and equity risk premium from Damodaran Online (NYU Stern).
StocksXray is for education only and is not financial advice. Scores and fair values are model estimates from public filings and carry uncertainty.