Comprehensive Stock Comparison
Compare Nano Labs Ltd (NA) vs Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) Stock
Analyze side-by-side fundamentals, valuation, growth, and profitability to decide which stock is the better buy.
Selected Stocks
Add up to 10 tickers. Use presets or search to get started.
Quick Verdict
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | AMBA | 25.8% revenue growth vs NA's -48.2% |
| Quality / Margins | AMBA | -21.3% net margin vs NA's -261.0% |
| Stability / Safety | NA | Beta 0.67 vs AMBA's 2.14 |
| Dividends | Tie | Neither pays a meaningful dividend |
| Momentum (1Y) | AMBA | -1.8% vs NA's -53.2% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | NA | -4.3% ROA vs AMBA's -10.6%, ROIC -30.4% vs -22.5% |
Who Each Stock Is For
Income & stability
Growth exposure
Long-term compounding (10Y)
Sleep-well-at-night portfolio
Defensive / Recession hedge
Business Model
What each company does and how it makes money
Nano Labs is a fabless semiconductor company that designs high-performance computing chips for data centers and distributed computing applications. It generates revenue primarily from chip sales to enterprise customers — including high throughput computing chips, smart network interface cards, and vision computing chips — with additional income from software and technology licensing. The company's competitive advantage lies in its specialized expertise in high-performance computing architectures and its early-mover position in China's growing data center chip market.
Ambarella designs specialized computer vision system-on-chips (SoCs) that process high-definition video and run AI algorithms for cameras in automotive, security, and robotics applications. It generates revenue primarily from semiconductor sales—with automotive (around 60%) and security/industrial (around 40%) as its main segments—through direct sales and distribution channels. The company's moat lies in its proprietary AI processor architecture and deep expertise in video compression and computer vision algorithms, which are difficult to replicate.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Financial Metrics Comparison
Side-by-side fundamentals across 2 stocks. BestLagging
Financial Scorecard
AMBA leads in 4 of 6 categories — strongest in Financial Metrics and Valuation Metrics. 1 category is tied.
Financial Metrics (TTM)
AMBA is the larger business by revenue, generating $374M annually — 15.5x NA's $24M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from -21.3% (AMBA) to -2.6% (NA). On growth, AMBA holds the edge at +31.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $24M | $374M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$66M | -$72M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$63M | -$80M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$117M | $76M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +48.8% | +59.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -3.2% | -23.6% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -2.6% | -21.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -4.9% | +20.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -66.5% | +31.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +50.0% | +39.7% |
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8M | $2.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $33M | $2.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -12.12x | -21.25x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 98.34x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.43x | 9.12x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 5.88x | 4.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 110.74x |
Profitability & Efficiency
NA delivers a -10.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $-10 in annual profit, vs $-13 for AMBA. AMBA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NA's 0.85x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AMBA scores 6/9 vs NA's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -10.2% | -13.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -4.3% | -10.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -30.4% | -22.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -38.3% | -22.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.85x | 0.01x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $166M | -$139M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $32M | $145M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $199M | $5M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -5.56x | — |
Total Returns (with DRIP)
A $10,000 investment in AMBA five years ago would be worth $5,079 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $245 for NA. Over the past 12 months, AMBA leads with a -1.8% total return vs NA's -53.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMBA at -13.8% vs NA's -36.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.1% | -19.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -53.2% | -1.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -74.3% | -36.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.6% | -49.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.6% | +30.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -36.5% | -13.8% |
Risk & Volatility
NA is the less volatile stock with a 0.67 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AMBA's 2.14 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AMBA currently trades 62.4% from its 52-week high vs NA's 9.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.67x | 2.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $31.48 | $96.69 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.75 | $38.86 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +9.4% | +62.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.5 | 59.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 36K | 726K |
Analyst Outlook
| Metric | NANano Labs Ltd | AMBAAmbarella, Inc. |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $97.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 36 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | — |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Historical Charts
Charts are rendered on first load. Hover for details.
Chart 1Total Return — 5 Years (Rebased to 100)
| Stock | Jul 22 | Feb 26 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Labs Ltd (NA) | 100 | 2.71 | -97.3% |
| Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) | 100 | 73.04 | -27.0% |
Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) returned -49% over 5 years vs Nano Labs Ltd (NA)'s -98%.
Chart 2Revenue Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Labs Ltd (NA) | $0.00 | $41M | — |
| Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) | $316M | $285M | -10.0% |
Ambarella, Inc.'s revenue grew from $316M (2016) to $285M (2025) — a -1.2% CAGR.
Chart 3Net Margin Trend — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Labs Ltd (NA) | -17.7% | -2.8% | +84.3% |
| Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) | 24.2% | -41.1% | -270.0% |
Ambarella, Inc.'s net margin went from 24% (2016) to -41% (2025).
Chart 4EPS Growth — 10 Years
| Stock | 2016 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nano Labs Ltd (NA) | -0.28 | -1.67 | -496.4% |
| Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) | 2.27 | -2.84 | -225.1% |
Ambarella, Inc.'s EPS grew from $2.27 (2016) to $-2.84 (2025) — a NaN% CAGR.
Chart 5Free Cash Flow — 5 Years
Nano Labs Ltd generated $-176M FCF in 2024 (-379% vs 2021). Ambarella, Inc. generated $23M FCF in 2025 (-9% vs 2021).
NA vs AMBA: Frequently Asked Questions
7 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NA or AMBA a better buy right now?
Analysts rate Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) a "Buy" — based on 36 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 is the better long-term investment — NA or AMBA?
Over the past 5 years, Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) delivered a total return of -49.2%, compared to -97.6% for Nano Labs Ltd (NA). A $10,000 investment in AMBA five years ago would be worth approximately $5K today (assuming dividends reinvested). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMBA returned +30.0% versus NA's -97.6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — NA or AMBA?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nano Labs Ltd (NA) is the lower-risk stock at 0.67β versus Ambarella, Inc.'s 2.14β — meaning AMBA is approximately 219% more volatile than NA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 85% for Nano Labs Ltd — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
04Which has better profit margins — NA or AMBA?
Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) is the more profitable company, earning -41.1% net margin versus -278.8% for Nano Labs Ltd — meaning it keeps -41.1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMBA leads at -44.4% versus -242.7% for NA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMBA leads at 60.5%, 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.
05Which pays a better dividend — NA or AMBA?
None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend. All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.
06Is NA or AMBA better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Nano Labs Ltd (NA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.67)). Ambarella, Inc. (AMBA) 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 (NA: -97.6%, AMBA: +30.0%), 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.
07What are the main differences between NA and AMBA?
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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that beat both.