LSCC vs AMAT

For growth investors, Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) is the stronger pick with 4. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 7% for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC). Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) offers the better valuation at 50. 3x trailing P/E (39. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC) a "Buy" — based on 17 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, Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) is the cheapest at 50. 3x versus Lattice Semiconductor Corporation at 5703. 6x. On forward P/E, Applied Materials, Inc. is actually cheaper at 39. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) delivered a total return of +254. 5%, compared to +172. 4% for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LSCC returned +23. 5% versus AMAT's +21. 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), Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) is the lower-risk stock at 2. 19β versus Lattice Semiconductor Corporation's 2. 40β — meaning LSCC is approximately 10% more volatile than AMAT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 32% for Applied Materials, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) is pulling ahead at 4. 4% versus 2. 7% for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Applied Materials, Inc. grew EPS 0. 6% year-over-year, compared to -94. 9% for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMAT leads at 3. 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 0. 6% for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation — 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 2. 9% for LSCC. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Applied Materials, Inc.

(AMAT) trades at 39. 3x forward P/E versus 121. 1x for Lattice Semiconductor Corporation — 81. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LSCC: 8. 8% to $138. 33.

In this comparison, AMAT (0.

4% yield) pays a dividend. LSCC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (LSCC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding.

Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) carries a higher beta of 2. 19 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LSCC: +23. 5%, AMAT: +21. 4%), 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.

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.