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 2026-06-25.

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

Micron Technology, Inc. emerges as the standout performer across key metrics, displaying superior growth momentum and more attractive valuation multiples when compared to Applied Materials, Inc. AMAT, while a robust player in its sector, lags behind MU in terms of profitability margins, cash generation, and analyst sentiment, which consistently favors Micron Technology, Inc. Investors seeking a blend of rapid expansion, stronger operational efficiency, and a clearer path to target price appreciation might find MU more compelling at this juncture, though this is 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 2026-06-25.

Relative valuation: AMAT vs MU

When evaluating the current market prices of Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc., a significant divergence in their earnings multiples becomes apparent. AMAT stock currently trades at a P/E ratio of 55.1x, which is substantially higher than MU’s more modest P/E of 23.39x. This considerable price-to-earnings gap suggests that investors are pricing in much greater future growth expectations or perceive a higher degree of stability for Applied Materials, Inc. compared to its peer, or perhaps MU simply presents a more attractive fundamental discount based on its earnings. Furthermore, examining their respective price-to-book ratios reveals a similar trend, with AMAT at 19.56x against Micron Technology, Inc.’s 11.72x, further emphasizing a premium valuation for Applied Materials, Inc.

The disparity in intrinsic value estimates, based on current consensus data, further highlights this valuation difference. The discounted cash flow (DCF) model indicates a significant negative upside for both companies, suggesting they are presently trading above their calculated intrinsic values. However, AMAT’s DCF upside is a striking -159.0%, implying a substantial overvaluation according to this model. In contrast, MU, while also showing a negative DCF upside of -57.5%, presents a less severe overvaluation from this perspective. Therefore, for investors prioritizing a more conservative earnings multiple and a potentially less extended valuation, Micron Technology, Inc. appears to carry a more attractive valuation at this time.

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

Regarding topline expansion, Micron Technology, Inc. exhibits significantly more robust revenue momentum compared to Applied Materials, Inc. MU reported an impressive year-over-year revenue growth rate of +48.9%, reflecting strong demand and market penetration within its operating segments. In stark contrast, AMAT posted a more subdued revenue growth of +4.4% over the same period, indicating a much slower pace of expansion for the semiconductor equipment provider. This considerable disparity in growth rates suggests that Micron Technology, Inc. is currently riding a more powerful wave of demand, potentially driven by market recovery or technological advancements in memory and storage solutions.

Beyond top-line figures, profitability margins also shed light on their respective growth trajectories. Micron Technology, Inc. boasts a superior EBITDA margin of 49.81%, outperforming Applied Materials, Inc.’s 38.39%. This stronger operational efficiency for MU, coupled with its accelerated revenue growth, implies a more potent fundamental growth trajectory. While Applied Materials, Inc. is a critical enabler for the semiconductor industry, MU’s direct exposure to memory cycles and AI-driven demand appears to be translating into superior financial performance recently. It is crucial to acknowledge, however, that this gap in revenue acceleration may not persist indefinitely, as industry cycles and market dynamics can shift.

Profitability and cash generation: AMAT vs MU

In terms of profitability, Micron Technology, Inc. demonstrates a considerable advantage over Applied Materials, Inc. MU recorded a net margin of 55.91%, showcasing exceptional efficiency in converting revenue into profit. This is substantially higher than AMAT’s net margin of 29.31%, indicating that Micron Technology, Inc. retains a significantly larger portion of its sales as net income after all expenses. While Return on Equity (ROE) data is not available for either company, the difference in net margins suggests a stronger operational efficiency and a more effective cost structure for Micron Technology, Inc. in the present environment.

Shifting focus to cash generation, MU also leads in free cash flow productivity. Micron Technology, Inc. exhibits a free cash flow (FCF) yield of 3.87%, which is markedly higher than Applied Materials, Inc.’s FCF yield of 1.28%. This metric signifies that MU generates substantially more cash flow relative to its market capitalization, offering investors a better return on their investment through operational cash. A higher free cash flow yield typically indicates stronger cash conversion capability and greater financial flexibility, positioning Micron Technology, Inc. as a stronger performer in generating liquid assets from its core business operations.

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

The consensus among Wall Street analysts provides further insight into the perceived prospects of Applied Materials, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc. For Applied Materials, Inc., 77.4% of analysts maintain a “Buy” rating, reflecting a generally positive sentiment towards AMAT stock. However, their aggregated consensus target price stands at $542.13, which surprisingly implies a -8.0% downside from its current trading price. This suggests that while analysts like the company’s long-term position, its present valuation might be considered stretched or its near-term growth catalysts less immediate.

In contrast, Micron Technology, Inc. garners an even stronger endorsement from the analyst community, with 81.4% issuing a “Buy” rating for MU. Crucially, the consensus target price for Micron Technology, Inc. is set at $1353.18, indicating a substantial +29.1% upside potential from its current level. This robust target suggests that analysts foresee significant appreciation for MU shares, likely driven by anticipated improvements in memory markets, strong demand for its products, and a more favorable valuation. It is important to note that these price targets may vary depending on future estimate revisions and shifts in market conditions.

Which investor profile fits AMAT vs MU?

For growth-oriented investors, Micron Technology, Inc. appears to be the more compelling choice based on current data. MU has demonstrated exceptional topline expansion with a year-over-year revenue growth of +48.9%, significantly outstripping Applied Materials, Inc.’s more modest 4.4% increase. This strong revenue momentum, coupled with superior profitability margins, suggests that Micron Technology, Inc. is better positioned to capture market share and capitalize on burgeoning demand in its specific semiconductor segments. Investors seeking rapid portfolio appreciation fueled by robust sales increases might find MU’s trajectory more aligned with their objectives.

From a value investment perspective, Micron Technology, Inc. also presents a more attractive proposition. AMAT stock trades at a considerably higher earnings multiple of 55.1x, indicative of a premium valuation. Conversely, MU’s price-to-earnings ratio of 23.39x offers a more reasonable entry point for investors sensitive to valuation metrics. Furthermore, while both companies show negative DCF upside, Micron Technology, Inc.’s -57.5% suggests a less severe overvaluation compared to Applied Materials, Inc.’s pronounced -159.0%. This indicates that for those seeking stocks trading at a relative discount to their intrinsic value, MU might be the better option.

For income-focused investors, neither Applied Materials, Inc. nor Micron Technology, Inc. is currently suitable. Both AMAT and MU have a dividend yield of 0.0%, meaning they do not distribute earnings to shareholders in the form of regular cash dividends. These companies typically reinvest their profits back into the business to fund research, development, and expansion, which is common in the capital-intensive technology sector. Therefore, individuals prioritizing dividend income for their portfolio 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