Technology Distributors
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Technology Distributors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors |
| Market Cap | $1M | $2.04T | $262.15B | $53.62B | $203.35B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $362M | $68.28B | $18.44B | $4.37B | $11.76B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-667K | $24.97B | $5.37B | $-97M | $2.71B |
| Gross Margin | 2.8% | 67.1% | 57.3% | 55.4% | 62.8% |
| Operating Margin | -0.2% | 40.9% | 35.3% | 4.1% | 29.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 38.0x | 38.1x | 63.2x | 36.5x |
| Total Debt | $12M | $65.14B | $15.39B | $5.67B | $8.66B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2M | $16.18B | $3.23B | $772M | $2.50B |
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 23 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICZOOM Group Inc. (IZM) | 100 | 21.9 | -78.1% |
| Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) | 100 | 670.3 | +570.3% |
| Texas Instruments I… (TXN) | 100 | 154.8 | +54.8% |
| Microchip Technolog… (MCHP) | 100 | 118.3 | +18.3% |
| Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) | 100 | 211.2 | +111.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
IZM plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
AVGO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 23.9%, EPS growth 287.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 24.4%
- 30.2% 10Y total return vs ADI's 7.0%
- PEG 0.76 vs ADI's 5.36
- 23.9% revenue growth vs MCHP's -42.3%
TXN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 1.09, yield 1.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.09, Low D/E 94.6%, current ratio 4.35x
- Beta 1.09, yield 1.9%, current ratio 4.35x
- Beta 1.09 vs AVGO's 1.96
MCHP lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, ADI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 23.9% revenue growth vs MCHP's -42.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (38.0x vs 63.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 36.6% margin vs MCHP's -2.2% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.09 vs AVGO's 1.96 | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield, 22-year raise streak, vs MCHP's 1.8%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +108.2% vs IZM's -82.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.5% ROA vs IZM's -1.5%, ROIC 15.8% vs -4.1% |
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AVGO leads in 2 of 6 categories
TXN leads 2 • IZM leads 1 • MCHP leads 0 • ADI leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AVGO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AVGO is the larger business by revenue, generating $68.3B annually — 188.4x IZM's $362M. AVGO is the more profitable business, keeping 36.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MCHP's -2.2%. On growth, ADI holds the edge at +30.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $362M | $68.3B | $18.4B | $4.4B | $11.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $184,236 | $38.8B | $8.1B | $881M | $5.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$666,903 | $25.0B | $5.4B | -$97M | $2.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2M | $28.9B | $3.7B | $820M | $4.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +2.8% | +67.1% | +57.3% | +55.4% | +62.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -0.2% | +40.9% | +35.3% | +4.1% | +29.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -0.2% | +36.6% | +29.1% | -2.2% | +23.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +0.4% | +42.3% | +20.2% | +18.8% | +38.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.0% | +29.5% | +18.6% | +15.6% | +30.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.0% | +31.6% | +32.0% | +164.2% | +116.7% |
Valuation Metrics
IZM leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 52.8x trailing earnings, TXN trades at a 42% valuation discount to ADI's 91.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AVGO offers better value at 1.81x vs ADI's 13.41x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1M | $2.04T | $262.1B | $53.6B | $203.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $11M | $2.09T | $274.3B | $58.5B | $209.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -1.72x | 90.15x | 52.83x | -9999.00x | 91.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 37.99x | 38.12x | 63.20x | 36.48x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.81x | — | — | 13.41x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 60.94x | 34.20x | 55.92x | 42.49x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.01x | 31.91x | 14.83x | 12.18x | 18.45x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.26x | 25.67x | 16.15x | 7.52x | 6.12x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.75x | 75.75x | 100.71x | 69.45x | 47.53x |
Profitability & Efficiency
TXN leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AVGO delivers a 32.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $33 in annual profit, vs $-4 for IZM. ADI carries lower financial leverage with a 0.26x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TXN's 0.95x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AVGO scores 8/9 vs MCHP's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -4.3% | +32.9% | +32.5% | -1.4% | +8.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.5% | +14.9% | +15.5% | -0.7% | +5.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -4.1% | +14.9% | +15.8% | +1.8% | +5.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -8.6% | +16.9% | +19.0% | +2.1% | +6.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.79x | 0.80x | 0.95x | 0.80x | 0.26x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $10M | $49.0B | $12.2B | $4.9B | $6.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2M | $16.2B | $3.2B | $772M | $2.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12M | $65.1B | $15.4B | $5.7B | $8.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.31x | 9.24x | 12.06x | 0.78x | 10.80x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AVGO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AVGO five years ago would be worth $100,886 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,142 for IZM. Over the past 12 months, AVGO leads with a +108.2% total return vs IZM's -82.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AVGO at 90.8% vs IZM's -48.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -85.3% | +23.9% | +63.8% | +53.1% | +52.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -82.1% | +108.2% | +77.2% | +105.4% | +107.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -86.0% | +594.1% | +85.2% | +40.6% | +131.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.6% | +908.9% | +72.2% | +48.7% | +187.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.6% | +3019.8% | +476.4% | +363.4% | +704.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -48.1% | +90.8% | +22.8% | +12.0% | +32.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — IZM and ADI each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
IZM is the less volatile stock with a -0.75 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AVGO's 1.96 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ADI currently trades 99.5% from its 52-week high vs IZM's 13.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.75x | 1.96x | 1.09x | 1.69x | 1.45x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.74 | $437.68 | $292.64 | $105.91 | $418.75 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.34 | $203.69 | $152.73 | $48.52 | $200.96 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +13.8% | +98.2% | +98.4% | +93.6% | +99.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 42.0 | 60.0 | 75.2 | 78.9 | 67.9 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.0M | 23.1M | 6.7M | 9.1M | 3.4M |
Analyst Outlook
TXN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AVGO as "Buy", TXN as "Buy", MCHP as "Buy", ADI as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 7.3% upside for MCHP (target: $106) vs -11.9% for TXN (target: $254). For income investors, TXN offers the higher dividend yield at 1.90% vs AVGO's 0.53%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $443.72 | $253.71 | $106.35 | $378.56 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 58 | 65 | 46 | 54 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.5% | +1.9% | +1.8% | +0.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 16 | 22 | 5 | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.30 | $5.48 | $1.82 | $3.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.3% | +0.6% | +0.2% | +1.1% |
AVGO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). TXN leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
IZM vs AVGO vs TXN vs MCHP vs ADI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Broadcom Inc.
(AVGO) is the stronger pick with 23. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -42. 3% for Microchip Technology Incorporated (MCHP). Texas Instruments Incorporated (TXN) offers the better valuation at 52. 8x trailing P/E (38. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) a "Buy" — based on 58 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.
02Which has the better valuation — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
On trailing P/E, Texas Instruments Incorporated (TXN) is the cheapest at 52.
8x versus Analog Devices, Inc. at 91. 3x. On forward P/E, Analog Devices, Inc. is actually cheaper at 36. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Broadcom Inc. wins at 0. 76x versus Analog Devices, Inc. 's 5. 36x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
Over the past 5 years, Broadcom Inc.
(AVGO) delivered a total return of +908. 9%, compared to -88. 6% for ICZOOM Group Inc. (IZM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AVGO returned +30. 2% versus IZM's -88. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), ICZOOM Group Inc.
(IZM) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 75β versus Broadcom Inc. 's 1. 96β — meaning AVGO is approximately -363% more volatile than IZM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 26% versus 95% for Texas Instruments Incorporated — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Broadcom Inc.
(AVGO) is pulling ahead at 23. 9% versus -42. 3% for Microchip Technology Incorporated (MCHP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Broadcom Inc. grew EPS 287. 8% year-over-year, compared to -229. 4% for ICZOOM Group Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AVGO leads at 24. 4% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
Broadcom Inc.
(AVGO) is the more profitable company, earning 36. 2% net margin versus -1. 3% for ICZOOM Group Inc. — meaning it keeps 36. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AVGO leads at 39. 9% versus -0. 8% for IZM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AVGO leads at 67. 8%, 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.
07Is IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI more undervalued right now?
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, Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 76x versus Analog Devices, Inc. 's 5. 36x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Analog Devices, Inc. (ADI) trades at 36. 5x forward P/E versus 63. 2x for Microchip Technology Incorporated — 26. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MCHP: 7. 3% to $106. 35.
08Which pays a better dividend — IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI?
In this comparison, TXN (1.
9% yield), MCHP (1. 8% yield), ADI (0. 9% yield), AVGO (0. 5% yield) pay a dividend. IZM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is IZM or AVGO or TXN or MCHP or ADI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, ICZOOM Group Inc.
(IZM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 75)). Broadcom Inc. (AVGO) carries a higher beta of 1. 96 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IZM: -88. 6%, AVGO: +30. 2%), 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.
10What are the main differences between IZM and AVGO and TXN and MCHP and ADI?
Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: IZM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; AVGO is a mega-cap high-growth stock; TXN is a large-cap quality compounder stock; MCHP is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ADI is a large-cap high-growth stock. AVGO, TXN, MCHP, ADI pay a dividend while IZM does 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.