> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.altamiraequity.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# ASML vs AMAT: Head-to-Head Snapshot — 2026-11-01
- URL: https://www.altamiraequity.com/asml-vs-amat-2026-11-01/
- Published: 2026-11-01T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-10T07:38:21.000Z
- Description: ASML beats Applied Materials on growth, quality and momentum in our KPI-scored head-to-head — Total 61.3 vs 43.5 — but with no fair value on file for either name, valuation, income and risk go unjudged and confidence is low.
- Author: Altamira Capital
- Tags: Research, ASML, AMAT, Comparisons

Two companies supply the machines the AI build-out runs on. ASML Holding (NASDAQ: ASML) holds a monopoly on the EUV lithography systems every leading-edge chip requires. Applied Materials (NASDAQ: AMAT) is the broadest supplier of the deposition, etch and process-control equipment that fills the rest of the fab. Same demand wave, two very different scorecards — so we forced both through the same Altamira KPI gauntlet: all 31 KPIs, the six-lens check, and a verdict that can only be awarded from named KPIs.

**The verdict: ASML wins every category that could be judged — growth, quality and momentum — by wide margins (KPI Scorecard Total 61.3 vs 43.5).** But three of the six verdict categories — valuation, income and capital return, and risk — are unjudged, because deciding KPIs are missing for both names, most importantly any fair-value estimate. With three categories unjudged, confidence in the verdict is capped at low. ASML is the better business on this evidence; whether it is the better buy at $1,565.90 is a question this data set cannot answer yet.

*Data as of 1 November 2026\. ASML reports in euros with a 31 December fiscal year end; AMAT reports in US dollars with a fiscal year ending in late October. Prices are the NASDAQ listings in USD. Absolute figures are shown in each company's reporting currency; growth, margin and return comparisons are currency-safe. KPI engine run: 30 October 2026.*

## Decision at a glance

|                     | ASML Holding                     | Applied Materials                |
| ------------------- | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- |
| Overall             | **Wins the head-to-head**        | Wins no judged category          |
| Category score      | 3                                | 0                                |
| Unjudged categories | 3 of 6 (valuation, income, risk) | 3 of 6 (valuation, income, risk) |
| Confidence          | Low — three categories unjudged  | Low — three categories unjudged  |
| Price               | $1,565.90                        | $390.09                          |
| Forward P/E         | 38.1×                            | 20.8×                            |
| KPI Scorecard Total | 61.3 (Tier T3, grade B−)         | 43.5 (Tier T4, grade D)          |

## Category verdicts

Each category is awarded from named KPIs only. Where a deciding KPI is missing, the category is marked unjudged rather than guessed.

| Category                | Winner   | Deciding evidence                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| ----------------------- | -------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Growth                  | **ASML** | Growth pillar 68.7 vs 31.1 · Revenue CAGR 5Y 18.5% vs 10.5% · EPS CAGR 5Y 23.9% vs 17.2% (both after the quality-of-earnings test below)                                                                   |
| Quality                 | **ASML** | Quality pillar 70.9 vs 61.5 · Moat pillar 87.8 vs 70.7 · ROIC 5Y 30.4% vs 28.3% · Cash conversion (OCF / net income) 130.3% vs 108.2%                                                                      |
| Valuation               | Unjudged | Margin of safety is a deciding KPI and is missing for both — no fair value is on file for either name. Value pillar (52.4 vs 46.3) and P/E NTM are shown in the tables but cannot carry the category alone |
| Income & capital return | Unjudged | Buyback yield and dividend-per-share growth (5Y and 3Y) are missing for both companies, so the category cannot be awarded                                                                                  |
| Momentum                | **ASML** | Technical pillar 53.7 vs 24.1 · Timing gate: ASML passes, AMAT fails · AMAT sits 43.1% below its 52-week high with a 3-month return of −19.0%                                                              |
| Risk                    | Unjudged | Interest cover — a balance-sheet deciding KPI — is missing for ASML. The Health pillar favours ASML (77.6 vs 69.8), but the category is not awarded on partial evidence                                    |

**Category score: ASML 3 — 0 AMAT**, with three categories unjudged. Under the framework, two or more unjudged categories cap verdict confidence at **low**.

## Snapshot

| Metric                                | ASML               | AMAT              |
| ------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------- |
| Price (NASDAQ)                        | $1,565.90          | $390.09           |
| Market cap                            | $603.5B            | $309.6B           |
| Reporting currency / fiscal year end  | EUR / 31 Dec 2025  | USD / 26 Oct 2025 |
| Latest FY revenue                     | €32.7B             | $28.4B            |
| Latest FY net income                  | €9.6B              | $7.0B             |
| Gross margin (latest FY)              | 52.8%              | 48.7%             |
| Operating margin (latest FY)          | 34.6%              | 29.2%             |
| P/E (TTM)                             | 40.3×              | 33.4×             |
| EV / EBITDA (TTM)                     | 32.8×              | 26.9×             |
| Price / sales (TTM)                   | 13.8×              | 10.0×             |
| FCF yield (TTM)                       | 3.9%               | 1.8%              |
| Forward P/E (consensus EPS)           | 38.1×              | 20.8×             |
| Dividend per share, trailing 12M paid | $9.31              | $2.51             |
| Trailing yield                        | 0.59%              | 0.64%             |
| Net debt / EBITDA (TTM)               | \-0.37× (net cash) | 0.03×             |
| Current ratio                         | 1.49               | 2.42              |
| Beta                                  | 1.30               | 1.59              |
| 52-week range                         | $946.11 – $1999.96 | $203.4 – $739.67  |
| Return, year to date                  | +46.4%             | +51.8%            |
| Return, 1 year                        | +46.8%             | +64.1%            |

## The six-lens gauntlet

Both companies are run through the same six lenses, in the same order, before any verdict is awarded.

| Lens             | ASML                                                               | AMAT                                                               | Judgment                                                                                      |
| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Revenue growth   | 5Y CAGR 18.5% · 2Y CAGR 8.9%                                       | 5Y CAGR 10.5% · 2Y CAGR 3.4%                                       | **ASML** — grows faster on both windows; both are decelerating, AMAT harder                   |
| Operating margin | 34.6% latest FY, up from 29.0% five years ago                      | 29.2% latest FY, up from 25.4% five years ago                      | **ASML** — higher level, similar expansion                                                    |
| EPS              | 5Y CAGR 23.9% · share count -7.2% over 5Y                          | 5Y CAGR 17.2% · share count -12.5% over 5Y                         | **ASML** — faster per-share growth with less of it bought back (see quality-of-earnings test) |
| Cash             | FCF €11.0B latest FY · FCF CAGR 5Y 24.9% · OCF / net income 130.3% | FCF $5.7B latest FY · FCF CAGR 5Y 11.0% · OCF / net income 108.2%  | **ASML** — more cash, compounding faster, better conversion                                   |
| ROIC             | ROIC 5Y 30.4% · ROCE 5Y 36.9%                                      | ROIC 5Y 28.3% · ROCE 5Y 33.6%                                      | **ASML** — narrow edge; both earn far above any plausible cost of capital                     |
| Balance sheet    | Debt / equity 0.22× · net cash · current ratio 1.49                | Debt / equity 0.35× · net debt / EBITDA 0.03× · current ratio 2.42 | **Tie** — ASML carries less leverage; AMAT holds the deeper liquidity cushion                 |

**Quality-of-earnings test.** EPS growth only counts in full when it survives the share-count test. Both companies fail it in the same way: ASML's diluted share count fell 7.2% over five years while EPS compounded at 23.9%, and AMAT's fell 12.5% while EPS compounded at 17.2%. Both are labelled *buyback-driven* (provisional) — not a disqualification, but the EPS growth of both is weighted down in the verdict, AMAT's more than ASML's because more of its per-share growth was purchased rather than earned.

## KPI Scorecard

The scorecard scores each company on 31 KPIs grouped into seven pillars. Fundamental is weighted Quality 25%, Growth 20%, Value 20%, Shareholder 15%, Health 10%, Moat 10%; the Total adds the Technical pillar at 30% against Fundamental's 70%. Scores are computed inside the Altamira KPI engine's scored universe — they rank these companies against that universe, not against a broad index.

| Score            | ASML     | AMAT     |
| ---------------- | -------- | -------- |
| Total            | **61.3** | **43.5** |
| Fundamental      | 64.5     | 51.8     |
| Tier / grade     | TT3 / B- | TT4 / D  |
| KPIs with values | 26 of 31 | 27 of 31 |

### Pillar scores (0–100)

| Pillar      | ASML     | AMAT     |
| ----------- | -------- | -------- |
| Quality     | **70.9** | 61.5     |
| Growth      | **68.7** | 31.1     |
| Value       | **52.4** | 46.3     |
| Shareholder | 40.0     | **45.8** |
| Health      | **77.6** | 69.8     |
| Moat        | **87.8** | 70.7     |
| Technical   | **53.7** | 24.1     |

![The seven scorecard pillars side by side: ASML leads on quality, growth, value, health, moat and technical; AMAT edges the shareholder pillar](https://www.altamiraequity.com/content/images/2026/11/asml-vs-amat-2026-11-01-pillars.png)

The seven scorecard pillars side by side: ASML leads on quality, growth, value, health, moat and technical; AMAT edges the shareholder pillar. Source: Altamira KPI Scorecard, as tabulated in this note.

### Gates

| Gate                                            | ASML                                    | AMAT                     |
| ----------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------ |
| Quality gate (Fundamental ≥ 70 and Health ≥ 50) | Fail — Fundamental 64.5                 | Fail — Fundamental 51.8  |
| Price gate (Value ≥ 50 and P/E NTM not red)     | Fail — P/E NTM 30.6× is in the red zone | Fail — Value pillar 46.3 |
| Timing gate (trend state and RSI ≤ 70)          | **Pass**                                | Fail                     |
| QC gate (engine)                                | Fail                                    | Fail                     |

**Weakest links.** ASML's weakest fundamental KPI is its dividend yield — 0.5%, scoring 30.0 of 100: an income investor is paid almost nothing to wait. AMAT's weakest is its 3-year revenue CAGR — 3.2%, scoring 12.5 of 100 and flagged red: the recent growth engine, not the long one, is what has stalled.

## All 31 KPIs

Raw value first, engine score (of 100) beneath it. The stronger score in each row is bolded. A dash means the KPI could not be computed from the available data — those gaps drive the unjudged categories above.

### Quality

| KPI                                  | ASML               | AMAT           |
| ------------------------------------ | ------------------ | -------------- |
| ROIC, 5Y average                     | **30.4%**score 88  | 28.3%score 83  |
| ROCE, 5Y average                     | **36.9%**score 88  | 33.6%score 83  |
| Gross margin                         | **52.8%**score 46  | 48.7%score 34  |
| Net margin                           | **29.4%**score 61  | 24.7%score 54  |
| Operating cash flow / net income, 5Y | **133.1%**score 44 | 108.2%score 18 |

### Growth

| KPI                     | ASML              | AMAT          |
| ----------------------- | ----------------- | ------------- |
| Revenue CAGR, 5Y        | **18.5%**score 62 | 10.5%score 23 |
| Revenue CAGR, 3Y        | **15.6%**score 65 | 3.2%score 12  |
| Free cash flow CAGR, 5Y | **25.0%**score 78 | 11.0%score 27 |
| Free cash flow CAGR, 3Y | **15.3%**score 61 | 7.3%score 36  |
| FCF per share CAGR, 5Y  | **26.9%**score 78 | 13.9%score 40 |
| FCF per share CAGR, 3Y  | **16.3%**score 61 | 10.2%score 47 |
| Diluted EPS CAGR, 5Y    | **23.8%**score 70 | 17.2%score 42 |

![The growth pillar's inputs: revenue, free-cash-flow, FCF-per-share and EPS compound annual growth rates for both names, as tabulated under 'All 31 KPIs'](https://www.altamiraequity.com/content/images/2026/11/asml-vs-amat-2026-11-01-growth.png)

The growth pillar's inputs: revenue, free-cash-flow, FCF-per-share and EPS compound annual growth rates for both names, as tabulated under 'All 31 KPIs'. Source: Altamira KPI Scorecard.

### Value

| KPI                            | ASML             | AMAT              |
| ------------------------------ | ---------------- | ----------------- |
| FCF yield, LTM                 | **3.9%**score 71 | 1.9%score 32      |
| P/E, next twelve months        | 30.6×score 34    | **21.8×**score 61 |
| Margin of safety to fair value | —                | —                 |

### Shareholder returns

| KPI                           | ASML          | AMAT              |
| ----------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------- |
| Dividend yield                | 0.5%score 30  | **0.5%**score 33  |
| Payout ratio                  | 22.1%score 57 | **17.0%**score 67 |
| Dividend per share growth, 5Y | —             | —                 |
| Dividend per share growth, 3Y | —             | —                 |
| Buyback yield                 | —             | —                 |

### Health

| KPI               | ASML              | AMAT          |
| ----------------- | ----------------- | ------------- |
| Debt / equity     | **0.22×**score 71 | 0.35×score 56 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.0×score 85      | 0.0×score 85  |
| Interest cover    | —                 | 30.8×score 70 |

### Moat

| KPI                    | ASML             | AMAT         |
| ---------------------- | ---------------- | ------------ |
| Moat heuristic (0–100) | **94.3**score 88 | 89.9score 71 |

### Technical

| KPI                                     | ASML                | AMAT            |
| --------------------------------------- | ------------------- | --------------- |
| Trend template (Minervini criteria met) | **66.7%**score 66   | 33.3%score 22   |
| Relative strength rank, 6M              | **65**score 65      | 45score 45      |
| Return, 3M                              | **+1.5%**score 38   | \-19.0%score 2  |
| RSI, 14-day                             | **46.3**score 32    | 40.5score 15    |
| MACD histogram, % of price              | **\-0.24%**score 40 | \-0.82%score 18 |
| Price vs 200-day average                | **+3.6%**score 45   | \-7.4%score 22  |
| Distance from 52-week high              | **\-16.9%**score 42 | \-43.1%score 8  |

## What the Street expects

| Next fiscal year consensus | ASML (FY to Dec 2026)       | AMAT (FY to Oct 2027)          |
| -------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------ |
| Consensus EPS              | 41.09 (range 36.46 – 43.43) | $18.77 (range $17.22 – $20.12) |
| Analysts contributing      | 20                          | 24                             |
| Implied forward P/E        | 38.1×                       | 20.8×                          |

The growth expectations are already in the prices: ASML trades at 38.1× consensus next-year earnings against AMAT's 20.8×. Consensus price targets could not be pulled for either name in this run, so no target-based upside is shown — another reason the valuation category stays unjudged rather than estimated.

## Risks and invalidation

**What would change the ASML verdict.** The judged-category sweep rests on growth and moat durability while valuation evidence is entirely absent: the P/E on next-twelve-month earnings (30.6×) already sits in the engine's red zone and the price gate fails. If ASML's 3-year revenue CAGR (15.6%) rolls over toward AMAT's level, or the quality and moat pillars crack, the sweep does not survive contact with the next engine run. And if a fair value lands far below the price, the unjudged valuation category could be awarded against ASML retroactively.

**What would change the AMAT verdict.** AMAT's loss is a growth-and-momentum loss, not a quality loss — its ROIC (28.3%) and balance sheet are genuinely strong. It trades 43.1% below its 52-week high with every technical KPI flagged red; if 3-year revenue growth re-accelerates from 3.2% and the trend repairs, growth and momentum are the first categories to flip. Its 20.8× forward P/E already prices in much of the slowdown — but with no fair value on file, that earns it an unjudged valuation category, not a win.

**Shared risks.** Both companies' EPS growth is buyback-assisted (quality-of-earnings test, above), so per-share growth overstates operational growth for both. The comparison also crosses two reporting regimes — euros versus dollars, December versus October fiscal year ends — so absolute figures are indicative, and the verdict leans on the ratios, growth rates and scores that are currency-safe.

## Gaps in this comparison

- No fair value on file for either company (the fair value of record is an external estimate; FMP DCF is never used). Margin of safety is therefore missing for both, and the valuation category is unjudged.
- Buyback yield and dividend-per-share growth (5Y and 3Y) are missing for both companies — the income & capital return category is unjudged.
- Interest cover is missing for ASML — the risk category is unjudged.
- Consensus price targets were unavailable in the data pull for both names.
- Sources: FMP company data pulled for the 1 November 2026 comparison; Altamira KPI engine run of 30 October 2026 (ASML scored on 26 of 31 KPIs, AMAT on 27 of 31).

Research for information only — not investment advice; see [Disclosures](https://www.altamiraequity.com/disclosures/).