Astera Labs vs MACOM Technology Solutions
ALAB and MTSI 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 MTSI compare
Astera Labs is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as MACOM Technology Solutions ($44.9B against $17.9B).
On earnings, MACOM Technology Solutions is cheaper: it trades at 74.9× trailing earnings, against 128× for Astera Labs.
Astera Labs grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (98.5% versus 28.4% for MACOM Technology Solutions).
Astera Labs keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 30.7% compared with 20.7% at MACOM Technology Solutions.
MACOM Technology Solutions scores higher on the StockData Score (13 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 | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $44.9B | $17.9B |
| Share price | $258.70 | $234.39 |
| Change, 1 year | 49.0% | 53.5% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 219% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.83 | 1.48 |
| Employees | 756 | 2,000 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 128× | 74.9× (better) |
| P/S | 37.3× | 15.4× (better) |
| P/B | 26.0× | 11.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 153× | 66.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 162× | 87.7× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.62% | 1.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $58.59 | $123.70 |
| Margin of safety | −342% | −89.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 98.5% (better) | 28.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 12.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 269% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.1% (better) | 56.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.8% (better) | 18.1% |
| Net margin | 30.7% (better) | 20.7% |
| FCF margin | 23.0% (better) | 17.5% |
| Return on equity | 25.8% (better) | 17.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 101% (better) | 15.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.22 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −1.23 |
| Current ratio | 10.05 (better) | 2.34 |
| Altman Z-score | 133.04 (better) | 18.94 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 73.6% | 95.9% |
| Held by insiders | 11.4% | 6.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$779M | −$320M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.0% | 4.8% |
Go deeper
- ALAB stock overview
- ALAB income statement
- ALAB valuation and score
- MTSI stock overview
- MTSI income statement
- MTSI valuation and score
Other comparisons
- ALAB vs CRDO
- ALAB vs RMBS
- ALAB vs SLAB
- ALAB vs SMTC
- FORM vs MTSI
- LSCC vs MTSI
- MTSI vs SMTC
- MTSI vs VIAV
- MTSI vs VICR
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.