How this AMAT vs MU comparison is calculated

All metrics are based on trailing twelve months (TTM) financial data, consensus analyst estimates, and standardized valuation ratios. Data is sourced from Financial Modeling Prep and SEC EDGAR. Figures are normalized to ensure a fair comparison between Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc.. Analyst price targets and ratings are aggregated from Wall Street consensus as of 2026-05-26.

Quick verdict: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Micron Technology, Inc. in 2026

Micron Technology, Inc. emerges as the growth leader in this comparison, showcasing a significantly higher revenue expansion rate. When evaluating the valuation landscape, MU appears to carry a more attractive earnings multiple compared to Applied Materials, Inc., based on current consensus data. Furthermore, Micron Technology, Inc. demonstrates superior profitability, leading in net margin and EBITDA margin, while AMAT boasts the highest analyst-projected upside. Not investment advice.

Applied Materials, Inc. vs Micron Technology, Inc.: key metrics side by side

A full side-by-side look at Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) and Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) across earnings multiples, profitability, revenue momentum, and analyst sentiment — data updated 2026-05-26.

Relative valuation: AMAT vs MU

A deep dive into the valuation metrics reveals a notable difference between Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc.. AMAT currently trades at an earnings multiple of 40.33x, which is somewhat elevated. In contrast, MU presents a slightly more favorable price-to-earnings ratio of 35.04x, suggesting a fundamental discount relative to its earnings power compared to its peer. This price-to-earnings gap could indicate that Micron Technology, Inc. offers a more attractive entry point for investors focused on current earnings.

Looking beyond the price-to-earnings metric, the price-to-book ratio for Applied Materials, Inc. stands at 14.35x, while Micron Technology, Inc. trades at 11.66x. This further reinforces the observation that MU might be valued more modestly on a book value basis. Moreover, the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis presents challenging figures for both, with Applied Materials, Inc. showing a significant negative upside of -181.0%, and MU having a less severe, yet still negative, DCF upside of -40.6%. Based on these comparisons, Micron Technology, Inc. appears to carry a more attractive valuation for potential investors, according to current consensus data.

Revenue momentum: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Micron Technology, Inc.

When assessing revenue momentum, Micron Technology, Inc. clearly outpaces Applied Materials, Inc. in recent performance. MU has demonstrated impressive topline expansion, posting a year-over-year revenue growth of +48.9%. This substantial increase signifies strong demand for its products and a robust market position. Conversely, AMAT recorded a more modest revenue growth rate of +4.4%, indicating a slower, albeit positive, expansion trajectory.

Further illustrating the divergence in operational efficiency and growth leverage, Micron Technology, Inc. boasts an EBITDA margin of 63.91%, significantly higher than Applied Materials, Inc.’s 36.82%. This gap suggests that MU is not only growing faster but also converting a larger portion of its revenue into operating profit before non-operating expenses. While AMAT remains a critical player in semiconductor equipment, the recent performance metrics suggest that Micron Technology, Inc. exhibits a stronger growth trajectory, though this gap may not persist if industry conditions or company-specific factors shift in the future.

Profitability and cash generation: AMAT vs MU

In terms of profitability, Micron Technology, Inc. demonstrates a clear edge over Applied Materials, Inc.. MU reported a net margin of 41.49%, indicating that a substantial portion of its revenue translates directly into profit. Applied Materials, Inc., while still highly profitable, shows a net margin of 29.31%. This fundamental divergence suggests that Micron Technology, Inc. is more efficient at converting sales into net income, possibly due to economies of scale or a more favorable product mix. Both companies currently report N/A% for Return on Equity (ROE), making direct comparisons on this specific metric impossible based on the provided data.

Shifting focus to cash generation, the Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield provides insight into how much cash a company produces relative to its market capitalization. Applied Materials, Inc. exhibits a FCF yield of 1.74%, which is slightly higher than Micron Technology, Inc.’s 1.21%. This indicates that AMAT generates more cash flow relative to its current share price compared to MU, suggesting a more efficient cash conversion process for the semiconductor equipment giant. While MU leads in pure profitability, Applied Materials, Inc. shows a marginal advantage in free cash flow generation as a percentage of its market value.

Wall Street view: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Micron Technology, Inc. analyst ratings

The consensus among Wall Street analysts provides further perspective on Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc.. For Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT), a significant portion of analysts, 77.4%, maintain a “Buy” rating. The average analyst target price for AMAT stands at $513.76, representing a positive upside of +18.9% from its current price. This sentiment suggests a strong belief in the company’s future performance and potential for capital appreciation, according to the current analyst landscape.

Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) also enjoys a strong endorsement from analysts, with an even higher percentage of “Buy” ratings at 81.4%. Despite this robust buying sentiment, the average analyst target price for MU is $499.68, which implies a negative upside of -33.5% from its current market price. This interesting divergence—high buy ratings coupled with a negative projected price movement—could suggest that analysts believe the stock is currently overvalued despite strong underlying business fundamentals, or that the price has run up significantly beyond near-term expectations. Investors should note that these targets may vary depending on future estimate revisions and market dynamics.

Which investor profile fits AMAT vs MU?

For growth-oriented investors, the choice between Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc. leans heavily towards MU. Micron Technology, Inc. has demonstrated exceptional revenue momentum with a +48.9% year-over-year growth, dwarfing AMAT’s +4.4% expansion. This indicates that MU is currently operating in a phase of robust market demand and expanding operations, aligning well with the objectives of those seeking aggressive capital appreciation driven by rapid topline expansion. Furthermore, Micron Technology, Inc.’s superior EBITDA margin of 63.91% compared to Applied Materials, Inc.’s 36.82% suggests that its growth is also highly profitable, providing a stronger foundation for sustained future expansion.

Value investors, on the other hand, might find Micron Technology, Inc. more appealing, despite its recent run-up. MU currently trades at an earnings multiple of 35.04x and a price-to-book ratio of 11.66x, both lower than Applied Materials, Inc.’s 40.33x P/E and 14.35x P/B. While both companies present negative DCF upsides, MU’s -40.6% is considerably less severe than AMAT’s -181.0%, indicating a relatively better intrinsic value proposition. This suggests that Micron Technology, Inc. offers a more attractive entry point based on traditional valuation metrics, especially when considering its impressive growth profile, providing a potential “growth at a reasonable price” narrative compared to its peer.

For income-focused investors, neither Applied Materials, Inc. nor Micron Technology, Inc. stands out as a suitable choice. Both AMAT and MU have a dividend yield of 0.0%, indicating that they currently do not distribute profits to shareholders through regular dividends. These companies typically reinvest their earnings back into the business to fund research and development, expand capacity, or pursue strategic acquisitions, which is common for growth-oriented technology firms in cyclical industries like semiconductors. Therefore, investors seeking regular income streams from their portfolios should look elsewhere. This is not investment advice. Always do your own research.

More Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc. comparisons

Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) full stock analysis · Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) full stock analysis · All stock comparisons