SNN vs ZBH

Smith & Nephew SNATS, Inc. vs Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. — Valuation Comparison 2026

SNN

Orthopedic, Prosthetic & Surgical Appliances & Supplies
Smith & Nephew SNATS, Inc.
Quality
8.3
out of 10
Value Trap
11
SAFE
Price
$29.69
Last close
Models
12/13
Active
VS

ZBH

Orthopedic, Prosthetic & Surgical Appliances & Supplies
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
Quality
5.8
out of 10
Value Trap
12
SAFE
Price
$82.33
Last close
Models
13/13
Active

Model-by-Model Comparison

ModelType SNN Fair ValueSNN Upside ZBH Fair ValueZBH Upside
Bayesian DCF Intrinsic $17.11 -42.4% $2.85 -96.5%
Earnings Power Value Intrinsic $14.31 -51.8% $34.52 -58.1%
EROIC Spread Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
First Chicago Scenario $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Markov DDM Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
ML-RIV Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Dynamic NAV Asset-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
PWERM Option-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Regime Cross-Sectional Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Sentiment SOTP Hybrid $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
CUCE Ensemble Ensemble $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
FTNN Topology Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
RCMH-DCF Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
🔒

Unlock Full 13-Model Comparison

Access all valuation models for SNN vs ZBH — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more.

Access Full Analysis — From $27/mo →

SNN vs ZBH — Which Stock Is More Undervalued?

SNN scores higher with a 8.3/10 quality rating vs ZBH's 5.8/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.

Comparing Smith & Nephew SNATS, Inc. (SNN) and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (ZBH) across 13 institutional-grade valuation models reveals how each company's intrinsic value stacks up against its market price. CirclFi's engine processes SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings, FRED macroeconomic data, and GDELT news sentiment to generate independent fair value estimates daily.

SNN currently trades at $29.69 with a QOC of 8.3/10, while ZBH trades at $82.33 with a QOC of 5.8/10.

Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN Topology), and ensemble methods (CUCE).