EVO vs LSCC vs AMAT vs IQV vs CRL

For growth investors, IQVIA Holdings Inc.

(IQV) is the stronger pick with 5. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 0% for Evotec SE (EVO). IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) offers the better valuation at 22. 8x trailing P/E (14. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Evotec SE (EVO) a "Buy" — based on 7 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, IQVIA Holdings Inc.

(IQV) is the cheapest at 22. 8x versus Lattice Semiconductor Corporation at 5377. 6x. On forward P/E, IQVIA Holdings Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: IQVIA Holdings Inc. wins at 0. 35x versus Applied Materials, Inc. 's 2. 16x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) delivered a total return of +213. 8%, compared to -85. 0% for Evotec SE (EVO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LSCC returned +22. 1% versus CRL's +119. 2%. 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), Evotec SE (EVO) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

08β versus Lattice Semiconductor Corporation's 2. 48β — meaning LSCC is approximately 129% more volatile than EVO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 2% for IQVIA Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), IQVIA Holdings Inc.

(IQV) is pulling ahead at 5. 9% versus -5. 0% for Evotec SE (EVO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Evotec SE grew EPS 50. 0% year-over-year, compared to -1555. 0% for Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IQV leads at 4. 2% 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.

Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) is the more profitable company, earning 24. 7% net margin versus -13. 1% for Evotec SE — meaning it keeps 24. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMAT leads at 29. 2% versus -17. 9% for EVO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LSCC leads at 68. 2%, 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 35x versus Applied Materials, Inc. 's 2. 16x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, IQVIA Holdings Inc. (IQV) trades at 14. 1x forward P/E versus 114. 2x for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation — 100. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EVO: 129. 5% to $7. 00.

In this comparison, AMAT (0.

4% yield) pays a dividend. EVO, LSCC, IQV, CRL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Evotec SE (EVO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

08), +132. 9% 10Y return). Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) carries a higher beta of 2. 14 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (EVO: +132. 9%, AMAT: +20. 1%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (EVO (Healthcare) and LSCC (Technology) and AMAT (Technology) and IQV (Healthcare) and CRL (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

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.