Nvidia vs United Microelectronics
NVDA and UMC 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 NVDA and UMC compare
Nvidia grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (83.4% versus 2.3% for United Microelectronics).
Nvidia keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 63.7% compared with 17.0% at United Microelectronics.
Nvidia pays a dividend yielding 0.25%; United Microelectronics does not pay one.
Nvidia scores higher on the StockData Score (26 against 9 for United Microelectronics), 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 | NVDA | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.9T | – |
| Share price | $204.64 | $16.68 |
| Change, 1 year | −1.2% | 126% |
| Change, 5 years | 588% | 54.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.04 | 0.86 |
| Employees | 42K | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 26 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.9× | – |
| P/S | 16.3× | – |
| P/B | 21.5× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 24.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 38.8× | – |
| PEG | 0.13 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.6% | – |
| Fair value | $306.55 | – |
| Margin of safety | 33.2% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 83.4% (better) | 2.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 66.9% (better) | 6.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 123% (better) | −17.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 125% (better) | −17.0% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 95.2% (better) | 11.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 74.7% (better) | 29.0% |
| Operating margin | 65.2% (better) | 18.5% |
| Net margin | 63.7% (better) | 17.0% |
| FCF margin | 41.9% (better) | 21.9% |
| Return on equity | 117% (better) | 11.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 114% (better) | 13.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.15 | 0.08 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.05 (better) | −1.89 |
| Interest coverage | 427× (better) | 27.4× |
| Current ratio | 4.59 (better) | 2.29 |
| Altman Z-score | 36.93 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.25% | – |
| Payout ratio | 3.5% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 20.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.1% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.4% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.7% | 1.4% |
| Held by insiders | 3.7% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9B | −$526M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 11 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.3% | – |
Go deeper
- NVDA stock overview
- NVDA income statement
- NVDA valuation and score
- UMC stock overview
- UMC income statement
- UMC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.