Quick verdict: AMBA vs FORM in 2026

In this Ambarella (AMBA) vs FormFactor (FORM) stock comparison for 2026, Ambarella takes the overall edge, leading in 8 out of 12 comparable metrics in our scorecard. AMBA stands out as the growth leader with significantly higher revenue growth, while FORM maintains better current profitability and a larger revenue base. Analysts appear more optimistic about AMBA, projecting substantial upside. 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 2026-04-14.

AMBA vs FORM valuation comparison

When considering AMBA vs FORM valuation, the picture is complex due to Ambarella’s current unprofitability. AMBA currently trades at a P/E ratio of -32.13x, which indicates negative earnings, making traditional P/E comparisons difficult. In contrast, FormFactor (FORM) has a significantly high P/E of 185.27x, suggesting the market has priced in substantial future growth or considers it expensive relative to its current earnings. Looking at the price-to-book (P/B) ratio, AMBA is valued at 4.1x, which is considerably lower than FORM’s P/B of 9.73x. This suggests that Ambarella is currently “cheaper” on a book value basis.

The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis presents a challenging outlook for both companies. AMBA’s DCF upside is estimated at -149.7%, indicating a significant overvaluation based on its projected future cash flows. FORM’s DCF upside is also negative at -91.4%, although less extreme than Ambarella’s. This implies that both stocks are currently trading at a premium according to their intrinsic value calculations by this model. However, considering the P/B ratio and the less negative DCF valuation, FORM’s overvaluation might be slightly less severe, although AMBA’s P/B ratio is more appealing for value-oriented investors seeking assets at a lower multiple of book value.

AMBA vs FORM growth comparison

In terms of growth, Ambarella (AMBA) demonstrates significantly stronger momentum compared to FormFactor (FORM). AMBA recorded an impressive year-over-year revenue growth of +37.2%, reflecting robust expansion in its market segments. This high growth rate positions Ambarella as a company with considerable potential, especially as it continues to innovate and capture new opportunities within its industry. While AMBA’s revenue base is smaller at $390,702,000, its percentage growth indicates strong market penetration and demand for its products.

FormFactor, on the other hand, reported a more modest revenue growth of +2.8% year-over-year, despite having a larger revenue base of $784,993,000. This slower growth rate suggests a more mature operational phase or potentially increased competition within its specific market. For investors prioritizing top-line expansion, Ambarella clearly has the stronger momentum, reflecting a company in a more dynamic growth phase, actively expanding its market presence and revenue streams.

AMBA vs FORM profitability

Examining the AMBA vs FORM profitability comparison, FormFactor (FORM) clearly outperforms Ambarella (AMBA) in current financial health. FORM boasts a positive net margin of 6.93% and an EBITDA margin of 11.89%, indicating effective cost management and operational efficiency that translates into profit. Ambarella, conversely, reports a net margin of -19.42% and an EBITDA margin of -17.69%, signaling that it is currently operating at a loss. Both companies have an ROE of N/A%, so this metric cannot be used for direct comparison.

Despite Ambarella’s unprofitability, it exhibits a higher Free Cash Flow (FCF) yield of 2.67% compared to FormFactor’s 0.12%. This discrepancy suggests that while AMBA is not generating net income, its operations might be efficient in converting revenue into cash, or its non-cash expenses are significantly impacting net income. However, for investors primarily focused on companies that generate consistent profits, FormFactor is the clear winner in terms of present profitability, consistently turning revenue into positive net income.

Analyst ratings: AMBA vs FORM

When it comes to analyst sentiment, Ambarella (AMBA) garners a more favorable outlook compared to FormFactor (FORM). Of the 36 analysts covering AMBA, 58.3% have a “Buy” rating, indicating a strong positive conviction in the stock’s future performance. Their consensus price target for Ambarella is $98.33, which suggests a substantial potential upside of +74.2% from its current price. This robust endorsement from a larger pool of analysts points to strong confidence in AMBA’s growth trajectory and market potential.

FormFactor (FORM), with 19 analysts covering it, has a lower “Buy” rating percentage at 47.4%. The consensus price target for FORM is $76.29, which surprisingly implies a significant downside of -41.2% from its current trading price. This indicates that while some analysts recommend a “Buy,” a considerable portion believes the stock is currently overvalued or faces headwinds. Based on these projections and the higher percentage of buy ratings, analysts clearly prefer AMBA, foreseeing considerably more upside potential for Ambarella in the coming year.

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 strategy and risk tolerance. For growth-oriented investors, Ambarella (AMBA) appears to be the more compelling choice. With a remarkable revenue growth of +37.2% year-over-year, AMBA clearly demonstrates superior momentum and expansion potential compared to FORM’s +2.8% growth. While AMBA is currently unprofitable, its aggressive growth suggests future profitability could be substantial if it executes its strategy effectively.

For value investors, the AMBA vs FORM fundamentals and valuation comparison presents a nuanced decision. Ambarella, despite its negative P/E ratio due to unprofitability, trades at a lower Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio of 4.1x compared to FormFactor’s 9.73x. This suggests AMBA could be considered “cheaper” on an asset basis. However, FORM is profitable with a P/E of 185.27x, indicating a high valuation relative to its current earnings. While AMBA’s analyst target implies significant upside, its negative DCF suggests caution.

When considering income, neither AMBA nor FORM is suitable for dividend investors, as both companies currently have a 0% dividend yield. Both companies are focused on reinvesting capital for growth rather than returning it to shareholders through dividends. Therefore, investors seeking regular income streams should look elsewhere. Ultimately, the choice between AMBA and FORM hinges on whether you prioritize high growth potential with current unprofitability (AMBA) or established profitability with slower growth (FORM). This is not investment advice; please conduct your own thorough due diligence.

More AMBA and FORM comparisons

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

FAQ: AMBA vs FORM