Applied Materials vs Flex
AMAT and FLEX 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 AMAT and FLEX compare
Applied Materials is the larger company, worth 9.7 times as much as Flex ($310B against $31.9B).
On earnings, Flex is cheaper: it trades at 31.2× trailing earnings, against 33.7× for Applied Materials.
Flex grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 7.8% for Applied Materials).
Applied Materials pays a dividend yielding 0.51%; Flex does not pay one.
Applied Materials scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 11 for Flex), 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 | AMAT | FLEX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $310B | $31.9B |
| Share price | $390.09 | $86.48 |
| Change, 1 year | 65.5% | 30.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 154% | 375% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.74 | 1.55 |
| Employees | 37K | 150K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.7× | 31.2× (better) |
| P/S | 10.0× | 1.0× (better) |
| P/B | 12.1× | 5.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 31.9× | 21.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 55.1× | 40.8× (better) |
| PEG | 6.48 | 2.93 (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.8% | 2.5% (better) |
| Fair value | $284.71 | $61.32 |
| Margin of safety | −37.0% (better) | −41.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.8% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | 3.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.3% (better) | 22.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.2% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% (better) | 9.5% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net margin | 30.1% | – |
| FCF margin | 18.2% (better) | 2.5% |
| Return on equity | 41.1% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 36.2% (better) | 17.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 (better) | 0.90 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.15 | 1.36 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 33.0× (better) | 6.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.42 (better) | 1.34 |
| Altman Z-score | 14.16 (better) | 2.57 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.51% | – |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.66% | 1.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.7% | 94.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.36% | 0.77% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$180M | −$118M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 11 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.7% | 2.4% |
Go deeper
- AMAT stock overview
- AMAT income statement
- AMAT valuation and score
- FLEX stock overview
- FLEX income statement
- FLEX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.