CGNX vs KLIC vs COHU vs MKSI vs FORM

For growth investors, Cohu, Inc.

(COHU) is the stronger pick with 12. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -7. 4% for Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (KLIC). MKS Inc. (MKSI) offers the better valuation at 71. 7x trailing P/E (27. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (KLIC) a "Buy" — based on 11 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, MKS Inc.

(MKSI) is the cheapest at 71. 7x versus Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. at 9999. 0x. On forward P/E, MKS Inc. is actually cheaper at 27. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, FormFactor, Inc.

(FORM) delivered a total return of +306. 8%, compared to -12. 1% for Cognex Corporation (CGNX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FORM returned +1997% versus CGNX's +248. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cognex Corporation (CGNX) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

54β versus MKS Inc. 's 2. 56β — meaning MKSI is approximately 66% more volatile than CGNX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, FormFactor, Inc. (FORM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 173% for MKS Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Cohu, Inc.

(COHU) is pulling ahead at 12. 7% versus -7. 4% for Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (KLIC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. grew EPS 100. 3% year-over-year, compared to -22. 5% for FormFactor, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MKSI leads at 3. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Cognex Corporation (CGNX) is the more profitable company, earning 11.

5% net margin versus -16. 4% for Cohu, Inc. — meaning it keeps 11. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CGNX leads at 16. 3% versus -13. 3% for COHU. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CGNX leads at 66. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, MKS Inc.

(MKSI) trades at 27. 3x forward P/E versus 85. 0x for Cohu, Inc. — 57. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COHU: 0. 4% to $49. 75.

In this comparison, KLIC (1.

0% yield), CGNX (0. 5% yield), MKSI (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. COHU, FORM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.

(KLIC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1. 0% yield, +853. 9% 10Y return). Cohu, Inc. (COHU) carries a higher beta of 2. 12 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KLIC: +853. 9%, COHU: +348. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

KLIC pays a dividend while CGNX, COHU, MKSI, FORM do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.