Applied Materials vs Intel
AMAT and INTC 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 INTC compare
Applied Materials and Intel are about the same size, with market caps of $294B and $317B.
Intel grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.1% versus 7.8% for Applied Materials).
Applied Materials keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 30.1% compared with −20.1% at Intel.
Applied Materials pays a dividend yielding 0.53%; Intel does not pay one.
Applied Materials scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 6 for Intel), 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 | INTC |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $294B | $317B |
| Share price | $370.50 | $59.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 60.6% | 57.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 147% | 20.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.78 | 1.66 |
| Employees | 37K | 109K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 19 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 6 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 32.0× | – |
| P/S | 9.5× | 5.3× (better) |
| P/B | 11.5× | 2.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 30.3× (better) | 187× |
| P/FCF | 52.3× (better) | 84.2× |
| PEG | 6.16 | – |
| FCF yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.2% |
| Fair value | $275.70 | – |
| Margin of safety | −34.4% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.8% | 12.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% (better) | −7.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.6% (better) | −6177% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.3% (better) | −24200% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.4% (better) | 39.9% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% (better) | 2.9% |
| Net margin | 30.1% (better) | −20.1% |
| FCF margin | 18.2% (better) | 6.3% |
| Return on equity | 41.1% (better) | −10.9% |
| Return on invested capital | 36.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.30 (better) | 0.44 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.15 | −2.20 |
| Interest coverage | 33.0× (better) | 1.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.42 (better) | 2.21 |
| Altman Z-score | 13.64 (better) | 2.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.53% | – |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.4% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.69% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 83.7% | 66.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.36% | 0.07% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$179M | $12.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 11 (better) | 6 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.8% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- AMAT stock overview
- AMAT income statement
- AMAT valuation and score
- INTC stock overview
- INTC income statement
- INTC valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.