Applied Materials vs KLA
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Applied Materials and KLA side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Applied Materials is the larger business, with $28.4B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $13.6B for KLA, about 2.1 times as much.
- KLA grew revenue faster (11.7%, against 4.4%).
- KLA turned more of its sales into free cash flow (27.7% FCF margin, against 20.1%).
- KLA earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (75.3%, against 35.9%).
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Applied Materials
AMAT
2/10
Net debt / EBITDAShare count change
KLA
KLAC
8/10
Revenue growth5-year growthGross marginNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-score
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | AMAT FY25 | KLAC FY26 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $310.1B | $196.9B |
| Revenue | $28.4B | $13.6B |
| Free cash flow | $5.7B | $3.8B |
| Net income | $7.0B | $4.8B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 4.4% | 11.7% |
| 5-year growth | 10.5% | 14.4% |
| Share count change | −3.1% | −1.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 61.3% |
| Operating margin | 29.2% | — |
| Net margin | 24.7% | 35.6% |
| FCF margin | 20.1% | 27.7% |
| Return on capital | 35.9% | 75.3% |
| Return on equity | 35.5% | 87.5% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | −$2.0B | $1.0B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.2x | 0.2x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $6.3B | $3.3B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 33.4x | — |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 | 8 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.