Applied Materials vs Lam Research
AMAT and LRCX side by side. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AMAT and LRCX compare
Applied Materials and Lam Research are about the same size, with market caps of $310B and $299B.
On earnings, Applied Materials is cheaper: it trades at 33.7× trailing earnings, against 41.5× for Lam Research.
Lam Research grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.0% versus 7.8% for Applied Materials).
Lam Research keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 31.3% compared with 30.1% at Applied Materials.
Both pay dividends: Applied Materials yields 0.51% and Lam Research 0.46%.
Lam Research scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 19 for Applied Materials), 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 | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $310B | $299B |
| Share price | $390.09 | $239.11 |
| Change, 1 year | 65.5% | 48.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 154% | 291% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.74 | 1.95 |
| Employees | 37K | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 33.7× (better) | 41.5× |
| P/S | 10.0× (better) | 12.9× |
| P/B | 12.1× (better) | 24.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 31.9× (better) | 34.4× |
| P/FCF | 55.1× (better) | 61.2× |
| PEG | 6.48 | 2.06 (better) |
| FCF yield | 1.8% (better) | 1.6% |
| Fair value | $284.71 | $144.76 |
| Margin of safety | −37.0% (better) | −65.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.8% | 26.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | 9.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.6% (better) | 35.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.3% | 38.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.2% (better) | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 50.5% (better) |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 35.3% (better) |
| Net margin | 30.1% | 31.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 18.2% | 21.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 41.1% | 65.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 36.2% | 77.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 | 0.30 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.15 | −0.21 |
| Interest coverage | 33.0× | 52.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.42 | 2.63 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 14.16 | 20.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.51% (better) | 0.46% |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | 17.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | 12 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% (better) | 14.9% |
| Buyback yield | 0.66% | 1.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.7% | 85.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.36% | 0.30% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$180M | −$169M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.7% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- AMAT stock overview
- AMAT income statement
- AMAT valuation and score
- LRCX stock overview
- LRCX income statement
- LRCX valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.