Semiconductors
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
Semiconductors
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors | Semiconductors |
| Market Cap | $23.61B | $39.47B | $37.81B | $550.40B | $39.42B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.57B | $6.79B | $240.73B | $53.76B | $6.06B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $220M | $885M | $50.11B | $-3.17B | $574M |
| Gross Margin | 23.2% | 25.2% | 29.6% | 35.4% | 37.2% |
| Operating Margin | 12.4% | 11.7% | 18.9% | -9.4% | 10.8% |
| Forward P/E | 70.2x | 38.5x | 22.2x | 105.1x | 34.4x |
| Total Debt | $162M | $1.64B | $59.78B | $46.59B | $3.47B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $235M | $1.81B | $110.66B | $14.27B | $2.15B |
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tower Semiconductor… (TSEM) | 100 | 658.9 | +558.9% |
| GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) | 100 | 145.5 | +45.5% |
| United Microelectro… (UMC) | 100 | 147.6 | +47.6% |
| Intel Corporation (INTC) | 100 | 223.7 | +123.7% |
| ON Semiconductor Co… (ON) | 100 | 209.2 | +109.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TSEM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 9.1%, EPS growth 4.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.3%
- 15.8% 10Y total return vs ON's 10.0%
- 9.1% revenue growth vs ON's -15.3%
- +483.5% vs GFS's +101.0%
GFS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.85, Low D/E 13.7%, current ratio 2.62x
UMC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.90, yield 3.0%
- PEG 3.05 vs TSEM's 3.40
- Beta 0.90, yield 3.0%, current ratio 2.34x
- Lower P/E (22.2x vs 34.4x)
INTC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, ON doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 9.1% revenue growth vs ON's -15.3% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (22.2x vs 34.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 20.8% margin vs INTC's -5.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.90 vs TSEM's 2.41 | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield; the other 4 pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +483.5% vs GFS's +101.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.8% ROA vs INTC's -1.6%, ROIC 10.0% vs -0.0% |
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
UMC leads in 3 of 6 categories
TSEM leads 2 • GFS leads 0 • INTC leads 0 • ON leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — UMC and ON each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UMC is the larger business by revenue, generating $240.7B annually — 153.7x TSEM's $1.6B. UMC is the more profitable business, keeping 20.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to INTC's -5.9%. On growth, TSEM holds the edge at +13.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.6B | $6.8B | $240.7B | $53.8B | $6.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $496M | $2.1B | $106.8B | $4.0B | $1.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $220M | $885M | $50.1B | -$3.2B | $574M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$41M | $1.0B | $50.1B | -$3.1B | $1.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +23.2% | +25.2% | +29.6% | +35.4% | +37.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.4% | +11.7% | +18.9% | -9.4% | +10.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.1% | +13.0% | +20.8% | -5.9% | +9.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.6% | +14.9% | +20.8% | -5.8% | +24.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +13.7% | 0.0% | +5.5% | +7.2% | +4.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +42.9% | +127.3% | +109.7% | -2.8% | +93.0% |
Valuation Metrics
UMC leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 28.4x trailing earnings, UMC trades at a 92% valuation discount to ON's 346.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), UMC offers better value at 3.90x vs TSEM's 5.25x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $23.6B | $39.5B | $37.8B | $550.4B | $39.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $23.5B | $39.3B | $36.2B | $582.7B | $40.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 108.25x | 44.61x | 28.43x | -1861.12x | 346.84x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 70.18x | 38.50x | 22.22x | 105.10x | 34.37x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 5.25x | — | 3.90x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 47.34x | 18.61x | 10.95x | 49.88x | 28.42x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 15.08x | 5.81x | 4.99x | 10.41x | 6.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 8.21x | 3.30x | 3.12x | 4.21x | 5.38x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 39.11x | 22.60x | — | 27.79x |
Profitability & Efficiency
UMC leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
UMC delivers a 13.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-3 for INTC. TSEM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.06x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ON's 0.45x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GFS scores 7/9 vs ON's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +7.6% | +7.6% | +13.5% | -2.7% | +7.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.6% | +5.3% | +8.8% | -1.6% | +4.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.4% | +5.3% | +10.0% | -0.0% | +6.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.6% | +5.6% | +9.0% | -0.0% | +6.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.06x | 0.14x | 0.16x | 0.37x | 0.45x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$74M | -$171M | -$50.9B | $32.3B | $1.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $235M | $1.8B | $110.7B | $14.3B | $2.1B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $162M | $1.6B | $59.8B | $46.6B | $3.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — | 37.36x | 3.71x | 10.49x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TSEM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TSEM five years ago would be worth $73,684 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $15,287 for GFS. Over the past 12 months, TSEM leads with a +483.5% total return vs GFS's +101.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TSEM at 69.9% vs GFS's 5.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +72.5% | +92.4% | +93.4% | +178.4% | +77.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +483.5% | +101.0% | +109.4% | +439.7% | +159.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +390.8% | +18.6% | +103.8% | +258.3% | +24.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +636.8% | +52.9% | +81.3% | +95.8% | +160.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1578.7% | +52.9% | +895.3% | +299.2% | +1004.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +69.9% | +5.9% | +26.8% | +53.0% | +7.7% |
Risk & Volatility
UMC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UMC is the less volatile stock with a 0.90 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TSEM's 2.41 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UMC currently trades 98.1% from its 52-week high vs TSEM's 90.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.41x | 1.85x | 0.90x | 2.15x | 1.95x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $232.67 | $76.37 | $15.45 | $114.51 | $105.88 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.42 | $31.51 | $6.56 | $18.97 | $37.56 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.3% | +92.9% | +98.1% | +95.7% | +95.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.7 | 80.1 | 79.6 | 85.9 | 81.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.9M | 4.2M | 9.9M | 110.6M | 9.2M |
Analyst Outlook
TSEM leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TSEM as "Buy", GFS as "Buy", UMC as "Hold", INTC as "Hold", ON as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply -26.7% upside for TSEM (target: $154) vs -43.3% for UMC (target: $9). UMC is the only dividend payer here at 3.03% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $154.00 | $51.14 | $8.60 | $77.18 | $62.40 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 14 | 19 | 15 | 84 | 45 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +3.0% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $14.41 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.5% |
UMC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). TSEM leads in 2 (Total Returns, Analyst Outlook). 1 tied.
TSEM vs GFS vs UMC vs INTC vs ON: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
(TSEM) is the stronger pick with 9. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -15. 3% for ON Semiconductor Corporation (ON). United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) offers the better valuation at 28. 4x trailing P/E (22. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (TSEM) a "Buy" — based on 14 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 — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
On trailing P/E, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the cheapest at 28.
4x versus ON Semiconductor Corporation at 346. 8x. On forward P/E, United Microelectronics Corporation is actually cheaper at 22. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: United Microelectronics Corporation wins at 3. 05x versus Tower Semiconductor Ltd. 's 3. 40x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
Over the past 5 years, Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
(TSEM) delivered a total return of +636. 8%, compared to +52. 9% for GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TSEM returned +1579% versus GFS's +52. 9%. 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 — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
90β versus Tower Semiconductor Ltd. 's 2. 41β — meaning TSEM is approximately 168% more volatile than UMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (TSEM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 45% for ON Semiconductor Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
(TSEM) is pulling ahead at 9. 1% versus -15. 3% for ON Semiconductor Corporation (ON). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. grew EPS 431. 3% year-over-year, compared to -92. 0% for ON Semiconductor Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, TSEM leads at -2. 3% 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 — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the more profitable company, earning 17.
6% net margin versus -0. 5% for Intel Corporation — meaning it keeps 17. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UMC leads at 18. 5% versus -0. 0% for INTC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — INTC leads at 34. 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 TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON 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, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 3. 05x versus Tower Semiconductor Ltd. 's 3. 40x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) trades at 22. 2x forward P/E versus 105. 1x for Intel Corporation — 82. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TSEM: -26. 7% to $154. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON?
In this comparison, UMC (3.
0% yield) pays a dividend. TSEM, GFS, INTC, ON do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TSEM or GFS or UMC or INTC or ON better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
90), 3. 0% yield, +895. 3% 10Y return). GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. (GFS) carries a higher beta of 1. 85 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UMC: +895. 3%, GFS: +52. 9%), 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 TSEM and GFS and UMC and INTC and ON?
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: TSEM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; GFS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; UMC is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; INTC is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ON is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. UMC pays a dividend while TSEM, GFS, INTC, ON 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.
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.