Ambarella vs Rambus
AMBA and RMBS 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 AMBA and RMBS compare
Rambus is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Ambarella ($9.1B against $2.8B).
Ambarella grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (20.0% versus 17.3% for Rambus).
Rambus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 33.4% compared with −13.5% at Ambarella.
Rambus scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 8 for Ambarella), 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 | AMBA | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.8B | $9.1B |
| Share price | $62.49 | $85.36 |
| Change, 1 year | −33.8% | −22.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −66.9% | 213% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.08 | 1.75 |
| Employees | 959 | 791 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 35.1× |
| P/S | 6.6× (better) | 11.5× |
| P/B | 4.4× (better) | 6.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 27.8× |
| P/FCF | 284× | 29.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 0.35% | 3.4% (better) |
| Fair value | $61.75 | $85.65 |
| Margin of safety | −1.2% | 0.34% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 20.0% (better) | 17.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.9% | 23.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 16.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 15.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 58.5% | 79.1% (better) |
| Operating margin | −14.9% | 36.3% (better) |
| Net margin | −13.5% | 33.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 2.3% | 39.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | −9.4% | 19.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −14.8% | 38.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 245× |
| Current ratio | 2.85 | 9.38 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 10.38 | 41.14 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 0.09% | 1.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.09% | 1.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 81.3% | 94.0% |
| Held by insiders | 5.5% | 0.78% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$17.1M (better) | −$20.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.1% | 4.2% |
Go deeper
- AMBA stock overview
- AMBA income statement
- AMBA valuation and score
- RMBS stock overview
- RMBS income statement
- RMBS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.