Astera Labs vs Cirrus Logic
ALAB and CRUS 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 ALAB and CRUS compare
Astera Labs is the larger company, worth 6.5 times as much as Cirrus Logic ($39.5B against $6.1B).
On earnings, Cirrus Logic is cheaper: it trades at 15.3× trailing earnings, against 90.8× for Astera Labs.
Astera Labs grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (115% versus 5.1% for Cirrus Logic).
Astera Labs keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 29.6% compared with 20.2% at Cirrus Logic.
Cirrus Logic scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 12 for Astera Labs), 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 | ALAB | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $39.5B | $6.1B |
| Share price | $227.79 | $121.71 |
| Change, 1 year | 36.0% | 1.1% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 49.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.99 | 1.12 |
| Employees | 756 | 1,668 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 20 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 90.8× | 15.3× (better) |
| P/S | 25.4× | 3.0× (better) |
| P/B | 19.8× | 2.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 92.4× | 10.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 115× | 11.6× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.42 |
| FCF yield | 0.87% | 8.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $73.96 | $177.04 |
| Margin of safety | −208% | 31.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 115% (better) | 5.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 7.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 132% (better) | 9.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 12.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 73.9% (better) | 53.1% |
| Operating margin | 25.5% (better) | 22.5% |
| Net margin | 29.6% (better) | 20.2% |
| FCF margin | 22.1% | 25.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | 28.2% (better) | 19.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 105% (better) | 26.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | – | 452× |
| Current ratio | 8.03 (better) | 6.41 |
| Altman Z-score | 81.21 (better) | 11.28 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 9 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 4.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 73.6% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 11.4% | 0.64% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$758M | −$12.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.2% | 7.6% |
Go deeper
- ALAB stock overview
- ALAB income statement
- ALAB valuation and score
- CRUS stock overview
- CRUS income statement
- CRUS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.