How this AMAT vs UBER 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 Uber Technologies, Inc.. Analyst price targets and ratings are aggregated from Wall Street consensus as of 2026-05-16.

Quick verdict: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Uber Technologies, Inc. in 2026

Uber Technologies, Inc. stands out as the growth leader in this comparison, exhibiting substantially higher revenue expansion compared to Applied Materials, Inc.. On the valuation front, Uber Technologies, Inc. also appears to hold an edge with more favorable earnings multiples and a positive DCF outlook. Conversely, Applied Materials, Inc. demonstrates superior profitability, evidenced by its robust net and EBITDA margins. Based on analyst sentiment and target upside, Uber Technologies, Inc. is currently the favored stock by a slim margin, suggesting greater potential price appreciation according to Wall Street forecasts. Not investment advice.

Applied Materials, Inc. vs Uber Technologies, Inc.: key metrics side by side

A full side-by-side look at Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) across earnings multiples, profitability, revenue momentum, and analyst sentiment — data updated 2026-05-16.

Relative valuation: AMAT vs UBER

When examining the relative valuation of these two technology giants, Uber Technologies, Inc. presents a notably more attractive picture compared to Applied Materials, Inc. The ride-hailing and delivery platform currently trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of 18.04x, which is significantly lower than AMAT’s earnings multiple of 40.75x. This substantial price-to-earnings gap suggests that Uber stock may offer a more favorable entry point for investors seeking value. Furthermore, the price-to-book (P/B) ratio reinforces this distinction, with Uber Technologies, Inc. at 6.23x against Applied Materials, Inc.’s 14.5x, indicating UBER trades at a more modest multiple relative to its book value.

The discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis further highlights the fundamental discount for Uber Technologies, Inc.. Its DCF valuation indicates an impressive upside potential of +86.2%, suggesting the stock is considerably undervalued based on future cash flow projections. In stark contrast, Applied Materials, Inc. stock shows a deeply negative DCF upside of -180.3%, signaling that its current market price far exceeds its intrinsic value according to this model. Based on current consensus data, the aggregate view points towards UBER carrying a more attractive valuation for potential investors, offering greater upside per these quantitative models. The divergence in these fundamental metrics suggests a clear advantage for Uber Technologies, Inc. in terms of relative affordability and potential for appreciation from a valuation perspective.

Revenue momentum: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Uber Technologies, Inc.

In the realm of topline expansion, Uber Technologies, Inc. clearly outpaces Applied Materials, Inc. UBER reported a robust year-over-year revenue growth of +18.3%, demonstrating its strong momentum in the market for mobility and delivery services. This dynamic performance underscores its ability to capture increasing market share and expand its global footprint. Conversely, Applied Materials, Inc., a key player in semiconductor equipment, posted a more modest revenue growth rate of +4.4%. While still positive, this rate reflects a more mature industry or potentially a cyclical downturn specific to the semiconductor capital equipment sector at present.

Beyond just revenue figures, a look at profitability metrics further illuminates the differing growth trajectories. Uber Technologies, Inc. posted an EBITDA margin of 10.9%, which, while lower than its competitor, represents significant improvement as the company scales and achieves operational efficiencies. Applied Materials, Inc., meanwhile, boasts an impressive EBITDA margin of 36.82%, a testament to its mature business model and strong pricing power within the specialized semiconductor industry. Despite AMAT’s superior operational profitability, Uber’s accelerated revenue expansion signals a more aggressive growth trajectory, though this gap may not persist indefinitely if industry conditions or competitive landscapes for either company shift dramatically. Investors prioritizing rapid market penetration and top-line scaling would likely find UBER’s performance more compelling.

Profitability and cash generation: AMAT vs UBER

When assessing profitability, Applied Materials, Inc. exhibits superior efficiency compared to Uber Technologies, Inc. AMAT boasts an impressive net margin of 29.31%, indicating that a substantial portion of its revenue translates directly into profit. This high level of net income generation underscores the strength of Applied Materials, Inc.’s business model in the semiconductor equipment sector, where specialized technology and high barriers to entry often lead to robust profit margins. Uber Technologies, Inc., while showing positive net income, operates with a net margin of 15.91%, which is commendable for a growing platform business but still significantly lower than its industrial peer. The “N/A%” reported for Return on Equity (ROE) for both companies suggests either insufficient data for a meaningful calculation or specific accounting treatments that make this metric non-comparable based on the provided information.

Shifting focus to cash conversion, the free cash flow (FCF) yield provides insight into how much cash a company generates relative to its market capitalization. Here, Uber Technologies, Inc. takes a strong lead with an FCF yield of 6.41%. This indicates UBER is generating a healthy amount of cash, offering flexibility for investments, debt reduction, or potential shareholder returns, relative to its stock price. Applied Materials, Inc. stock, while highly profitable, shows a more modest FCF yield of 1.79%. This suggests that despite its high net margins, AMAT’s cash generation relative to its valuation is less efficient than UBER’s. Therefore, while Applied Materials, Inc. excels in traditional accounting profitability, Uber Technologies, Inc. demonstrates a more robust ability to convert its operations into tangible cash flow, which is often a critical metric for long-term financial health and investor returns.

Wall Street view: Applied Materials, Inc. vs Uber Technologies, Inc. analyst ratings

The sentiment from Wall Street analysts for both Applied Materials, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. remains overwhelmingly positive, with both stocks enjoying a ‘Buy’ consensus rating. However, there are nuances in their respective outlooks. Applied Materials, Inc. has 53 analysts covering its stock, with 79.3% recommending a ‘Buy’. Their collective price target stands at $514.45, suggesting a potential upside of +17.8% from its current trading level. This indicates confidence in the company’s position within the vital semiconductor industry, albeit with a more moderate expected appreciation.

Uber Technologies, Inc. garners slightly stronger analyst enthusiasm. With a larger coverage of 61 analysts, UBER boasts an 81.9% ‘Buy’ rating percentage, slightly higher than Applied Materials, Inc.’s. The consensus price target for Uber stock is set at $102.9, which implies a significantly higher upside potential of +37.0%. This more optimistic target for Uber Technologies, Inc. suggests analysts foresee greater growth catalysts or believe the stock is currently more undervalued compared to Applied Materials, Inc. While both companies are viewed favorably, the higher percentage of buy ratings and the larger projected price target upside indicate that analysts, on balance, prefer UBER for its potential for greater capital appreciation. It’s important to remember that these targets may vary depending on future estimate revisions and market conditions.

Which investor profile fits AMAT vs UBER?

For growth investors, the choice between Applied Materials, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. leans towards the latter. Uber Technologies, Inc. demonstrates significantly higher revenue growth, expanding its top line by +18.3% compared to AMAT’s more conservative +4.4%. This strong momentum indicates that UBER is in a more aggressive expansion phase, capitalizing on its global platform and diversified services in mobility and delivery. While Applied Materials, Inc. operates in a crucial industry, its current growth rate suggests a more mature business cycle. Therefore, investors prioritizing rapid revenue expansion and market penetration would likely find Uber Technologies, Inc. stock a more suitable fit for their portfolio objectives, especially given its forward estimates pointing to continued expansion.

Value investors, on the other hand, might find Uber Technologies, Inc. to be the more compelling option based on current metrics. UBER trades at an earnings multiple of 18.04x, which is considerably more attractive when juxtaposed with Applied Materials, Inc.’s P/E of 40.75x. This valuation gap suggests a more reasonable entry point for Uber Technologies, Inc. relative to its earnings power. Furthermore, the discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis strongly favors UBER, showing an impressive +86.2% upside potential, while AMAT carries a substantial negative DCF value of $-350.59 or -180.3%. These figures indicate that UBER is potentially undervalued, offering a greater margin of safety and upside from a fundamental valuation perspective, appealing to those seeking stocks trading below their intrinsic worth.

For income investors, neither Applied Materials, Inc. nor Uber Technologies, Inc. stands out as an attractive option, as both companies currently have a dividend yield of 0.0%. Both AMAT and UBER are focused on reinvesting their earnings back into the business to fuel future growth and innovation, rather than distributing profits to shareholders via dividends. This strategy is typical for technology companies, particularly those still in significant growth phases or capital-intensive industries. Therefore, investors whose primary objective is generating regular dividend income would need to look elsewhere, as neither of these stocks aligns with an income-focused investment strategy. This is not investment advice. Always do your own research.

More Applied Materials, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. comparisons

Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) full stock analysis · Uber Technologies, Inc. (UBER) full stock analysis · All stock comparisons