Applied Materials vs Micron Technology
AMAT and MU 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 MU compare
Micron Technology is the larger company, worth 3.0 times as much as Applied Materials ($881B against $294B).
On earnings, Micron Technology is cheaper: it trades at 10.5× trailing earnings, against 32.0× for Applied Materials.
Micron Technology grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (256% versus 7.8% for Applied Materials).
Micron Technology keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 63.8% compared with 30.1% at Applied Materials.
Both pay dividends: Applied Materials yields 0.53% and Micron Technology 0.07%.
Micron Technology scores higher on the StockData Score (25 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 | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $294B | $881B |
| Share price | $370.50 | $778.31 |
| Change, 1 year | 60.6% | 218% |
| Change, 5 years | 147% | 837% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.78 | 1.93 |
| Employees | 37K | 61K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 | 25 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.0× | 10.5× (better) |
| P/S | 9.5× | 6.6× (better) |
| P/B | 11.5× | 6.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 30.3× | 7.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 52.3× | 14.9× (better) |
| PEG | 6.16 | – |
| FCF yield | 1.9% | 6.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $275.70 | $1851.97 |
| Margin of safety | −34.4% | 58.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.8% | 256% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% | 36.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.6% | 895% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.3% | 879% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.2% | 70.6% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 80.7% (better) |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 74.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 30.1% | 63.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | 18.2% | 44.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 41.1% | 88.3% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 36.2% | 107% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 | 0.04 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.15 | −0.35 |
| Interest coverage | 33.0× | 937× (better) |
| Current ratio | 2.42 | 3.31 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 13.64 (better) | 12.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.53% (better) | 0.07% |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | 0.72% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | 39.6% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.69% (better) | 0.07% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.15% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.7% | 77.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.36% | 0.22% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$179M (better) | −$331M |
| Superinvestors holding | 11 (better) | 5 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.8% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- AMAT stock overview
- AMAT income statement
- AMAT valuation and score
- MU stock overview
- MU income statement
- MU valuation and score
Other comparisons
- AMAT vs AMD
- AMAT vs AVGO
- AMAT vs INTC
- AMAT vs LRCX
- AMAT vs TXN
- AMD vs MU
- AVGO vs MU
- CBRS vs MU
- INTC vs MU
- MU vs NVDA
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.