Axcelis Technologies vs Lam Research
ACLS and LRCX side by side, both in special industry machinery, except metalworking. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ACLS and LRCX compare
Lam Research is the larger company, worth 97 times as much as Axcelis Technologies ($299B against $3.1B).
On earnings, Axcelis Technologies is cheaper: it trades at 33.6× trailing earnings, against 41.5× for Lam Research.
Lam Research grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.0% versus −3.3% for Axcelis Technologies).
Lam Research keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 31.3% compared with 10.7% at Axcelis Technologies.
Lam Research pays a dividend yielding 0.46%; Axcelis Technologies does not pay one.
Lam Research scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 6 for Axcelis Technologies), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ACLS | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $299B |
| Share price | $100.07 | $239.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.4% | 48.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 63.9% | 291% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.73 | 1.95 |
| Employees | 1,465 | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.6× (better) | 41.5× |
| P/S | 3.6× (better) | 12.9× |
| P/B | 2.9× (better) | 24.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 25.1× (better) | 34.4× |
| P/FCF | 47.1× (better) | 61.2× |
| PEG | – | 2.06 |
| FCF yield | 2.1% (better) | 1.6% |
| Fair value | $67.60 | $144.76 |
| Margin of safety | −48.0% (better) | −65.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.3% | 26.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.1% (better) | 9.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −41.5% | 35.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −39.1% | 38.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.1% (better) | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.0% | 50.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 10.3% | 35.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 10.7% | 31.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.6% | 21.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.9% | 65.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 13.9% | 77.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.30 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.21 |
| Interest coverage | 17.2× | 52.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 4.90 (better) | 2.63 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.83 | 20.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.46% |
| Payout ratio | – | 17.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 12 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 14.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 85.8% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.4M (better) | −$169M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 7 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.7% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- ACLS stock overview
- ACLS income statement
- ACLS valuation and score
- LRCX stock overview
- LRCX income statement
- LRCX valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.