Quick verdict: AMBA vs FORM in 2026

In this AMBA vs FORM stock comparison for 2026, Ambarella (AMBA) holds the overall edge, leading on 7 out of 11 comparable metrics. AMBA stands out as the clear growth leader with significantly higher revenue growth, while FormFactor (FORM) demonstrates stronger profitability with positive net and EBITDA margins. Despite FORM’s current profitability, AMBA is favored by analysts and offers substantial potential upside according to consensus price targets. This is not investment advice.

AMBA vs FORM: key metrics side by side

Full side-by-side comparison of AMBA and FORM across valuation, profitability, growth and analyst sentiment. Data updated 2026-05-08.

AMBA vs FORM valuation comparison

A direct valuation comparison between AMBA and FORM reveals contrasting pictures, especially concerning profitability. Ambarella (AMBA) currently holds a negative P/E ratio of -42.28x, indicating that the company is not profitable on a trailing twelve-month basis. In contrast, FormFactor (FORM) has a significantly high P/E ratio of 164.75x, suggesting that investors are paying a premium for its earnings, or that its earnings are quite low relative to its market capitalization. From a price-to-book perspective, AMBA appears less expensive with a P/B of 5.39x compared to FORM’s 10.63x, suggesting AMBA’s market value is a smaller multiple of its book value.

However, when examining the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models, both companies present challenges. AMBA’s DCF suggests an alarming downside of -134.7%, while FORM’s DCF indicates a downside of -93.8%. These negative figures imply that, based on the DCF model, both stocks are significantly overvalued at their current prices, though AMBA appears to be more severely overvalued from this perspective. Therefore, while AMBA’s P/B ratio and negative P/E (due to losses) might superficially make it seem “cheaper” compared to FORM’s extremely high P/E, a deeper dive into the AMBA vs FORM valuation through DCF suggests caution for both.

AMBA vs FORM growth comparison

When evaluating AMBA vs FORM growth, Ambarella (AMBA) clearly outshines FormFactor (FORM) with its impressive revenue growth. AMBA reported a year-over-year revenue growth of 37.2%, showcasing strong expansion and market penetration. This substantial growth indicates robust demand for Ambarella’s AI vision processors, which are critical in various emerging technology sectors such as autonomous driving, security, and industrial automation. Such rapid revenue acceleration often signals a company with strong momentum and potential to capture greater market share in its segments.

FormFactor (FORM), on the other hand, exhibits a much more modest revenue growth rate of 2.8% year-over-year. While positive, this single-digit growth suggests a more mature or slower-growing market for FormFactor’s semiconductor test and measurement solutions. Investors focused on high-growth opportunities might find FORM less appealing in comparison. Looking ahead, AMBA’s significantly higher revenue growth rate suggests it possesses stronger momentum and potential for continued top-line expansion, making it the preferred choice for growth-oriented investors in this AMBA vs FORM stock comparison.

AMBA vs FORM profitability

An analysis of AMBA vs FORM profitability reveals a distinct advantage for FormFactor (FORM) in terms of current earnings. FORM demonstrates solid financial health with a positive net margin of 8.14% and an EBITDA margin of 18.06%. These figures indicate that FormFactor is effectively managing its operational costs and converting a healthy portion of its revenue into profit. This sustained profitability is a key indicator of a stable and well-managed business, capable of generating shareholder value.

Conversely, Ambarella (AMBA) is currently operating at a loss, reflected in its negative net margin of -19.42% and EBITDA margin of -17.69%. While AMBA boasts a superior gross margin of 59.19% compared to FORM’s 42.11%, its significant operating expenses overshadow this advantage, leading to unprofitability at the net and EBITDA levels. Interestingly, AMBA’s Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield stands at 2.03%, notably higher than FORM’s 0.32%. This suggests that despite not being net profitable, AMBA is generating more cash relative to its market capitalization from its current operations than FORM, possibly due to non-cash expenses or favorable working capital management. Both companies have an N/A% for ROE, indicating that a direct comparison using this metric is not currently feasible based on the provided data.

Analyst ratings: AMBA vs FORM

Analyst sentiment heavily favors Ambarella (AMBA) in this AMBA vs FORM comparison, underscoring its perceived future potential. Out of 36 analysts covering AMBA, a significant 58.3% have issued a ‘Buy’ rating, culminating in a strong ‘Buy’ consensus. Furthermore, these analysts have set an average target price of $98.33 for AMBA, implying a substantial upside of +32.4% from its current price of $74.27. This strong consensus and attractive price target suggest a high degree of confidence among market professionals regarding Ambarella’s growth prospects and technological advancements.

FormFactor (FORM) garners a more cautious outlook from the analyst community. With 19 analysts covering FORM, only 42.1% have a ‘Buy’ rating, leading to an overall ‘Hold’ consensus. The average analyst target price for FORM is $123.38, which represents a downside of -14.7% from its current price of $144.68. This indicates that analysts believe FORM’s stock might be trading above its fair value or that its near-term growth catalysts are less compelling compared to AMBA. Clearly, based on analyst ratings and target price upside, AMBA is the preferred stock among market experts, highlighting a divergence in investment opportunities when considering AMBA vs FORM fundamentals and valuation.

Should I buy AMBA or FORM stock in 2026?

Deciding whether to buy AMBA or FORM stock in 2026 depends heavily on an investor’s specific objectives and risk tolerance. For growth-oriented investors seeking companies with significant expansion potential, Ambarella (AMBA) appears to be the more compelling choice. Its remarkable 37.2% year-over-year revenue growth far outpaces FormFactor’s (FORM) 2.8%, indicating AMBA’s strong momentum in its target markets. Despite current unprofitability, AMBA’s higher FCF yield and analyst-projected upside suggest a belief in its ability to scale and eventually turn a profit, making it a speculative but potentially rewarding growth play.

From a value investment perspective, the comparison of AMBA vs FORM fundamentals and valuation is nuanced. AMBA’s negative P/E ratio signals unprofitability, but its P/B ratio of 5.39x is lower than FORM’s 10.63x. However, both stocks show significant overvaluation according to DCF models, with AMBA at -134.7% and FORM at -93.8% downside. While FORM is profitable, its extremely high P/E of 164.75x suggests it is priced for substantial future growth that has not yet materialized in its recent revenue numbers. Investors looking for traditional “value” may find both challenging, but AMBA’s lower P/B and potential for future profitability might make it a contrarian value play if its growth trajectory continues.

For income-focused investors, neither Ambarella (AMBA) nor FormFactor (FORM) are suitable choices. Both companies currently have a 0% dividend yield, indicating they do not distribute earnings to shareholders through dividends. Instead, both are likely reinvesting any capital back into their respective businesses for growth and development. Therefore, for those asking “should I buy AMBA or FORM stock 2026” specifically for dividend income, the answer is neither. This is not investment advice; always conduct thorough due diligence before making investment decisions.

More AMBA and FORM comparisons

AMBA full stock analysis · FORM full stock analysis · All stock comparisons

FAQ: AMBA vs FORM