Advanced Energy Industries vs Monolithic Power Systems
AEIS and MPWR side by side, both in electronic components and accessories. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AEIS and MPWR compare
Monolithic Power Systems is the larger company, worth 7.8 times as much as Advanced Energy Industries ($68.3B against $8.8B).
Advanced Energy Industries grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (31.7% versus 28.7% for Monolithic Power Systems).
Both pay dividends: Advanced Energy Industries yields 0.18% and Monolithic Power Systems 0.54%.
Monolithic Power Systems scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 10 for Advanced Energy Industries), 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 | AEIS | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.8B | $68.3B |
| Share price | $219.68 | $1390.54 |
| Change, 1 year | 3.2% | 45.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 145% | 144% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.48 | 1.89 |
| Employees | 13K | 4,501 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 84.9× |
| P/S | 3.9× (better) | 20.9× |
| P/B | 5.5× (better) | 17.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 20.2× (better) | 66.9× |
| P/FCF | 126× | 117× (better) |
| PEG | – | 6.84 |
| FCF yield | 0.79% | 0.86% (better) |
| Fair value | $216.15 | $692.84 |
| Margin of safety | −1.6% (better) | −101% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 31.7% (better) | 28.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 4.9% | 27.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −52.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −52.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.9% | 29.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 40.3% | 55.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 16.0% | 28.7% (better) |
| Net margin | – | 24.5% |
| FCF margin | 3.1% | 17.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 22.6% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.9% | 33.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.80 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.37 | – |
| Interest coverage | 25.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 3.62 | 4.98 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.67 | 54.57 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.18% | 0.54% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 41.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 25.6% |
| Buyback yield | 0.08% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.26% | 0.54% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 96.9% |
| Held by insiders | 1.1% | 3.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$33.2M (better) | −$579M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.8% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- AEIS stock overview
- AEIS income statement
- AEIS valuation and score
- MPWR stock overview
- MPWR income statement
- MPWR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.