Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Applied Materials, Inc.
How Applied Materials, Inc. stacks up
AMAT · against 27 other Technology companies of similar size
Valuation
43/ 100
Above the middle of the pack.
Ranked #12 of 28 · scores higher than 59% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the valuation score7 peers with a valuation score of 40–49, including AMAT · Click a bar to see the companies
Why valuation scores 43?
Weighted metrics compared with all Technology companies.Its metrics sit close to the Technology norm.
- EBITDA yield is close to the peer norm. EBITDA yield: 3.2% vs peer median 4.2%
- Free cash flow yield is close to the peer norm. Free cash flow yield: 1.9% vs peer median 2.7%
- Earnings yield is close to the peer norm. Earnings yield: 3.1% vs peer median 2.2%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = AMAT, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | AMAT | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Earnings yieldHigher is better · 28 reported | 3.0% | 2.4% | 63% | 30% | |
| EBITDA yieldHigher is better · 28 reported | 3.4% | 3.3% | 56% | 50% | |
| Free cash flow yieldHigher is better · 27 reported | 1.9% | 1.9% | 50% | 20% | |
| Book yieldHigher is better · 26 reported | 8.5% | 8.0% | 52% | Context only |
Ranking by valuation score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around AMAT| Rank | Company | Market cap | Valuation | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 155.8B USD | 81 | 63 | |
| 1 | 164.9B USD | 81 | 89 | |
| 3 | 22.73T JPY (≈$154.5B) | 76 | 62 | |
| 4 | 175.6B USD | 73 | 56 | |
| 5 | 182.9B USD | 70 | 58 | |
| 8 | 382.5B USD | 62 | 55 | |
| 9 | 265.8B USD | 54 | 68 | |
| 10 | 406.0B USD | 51 | 54 | |
| 11 | 207.6B USD | 46 | 61 | |
| 12 | 303.1B USD | 43 | 58 | |
| 13 | 203.4B USD | 41 | 61 | |
| 14 | 181.7B EUR (≈$199.8B) | 40 | 56 | |
| 14 | 203.8B USD | 40 | 56 | |
| 14 | 288.7B USD | 40 | 63 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score