UCTT vs ICHR vs MKSI vs AZTA vs ENTG

For growth investors, Ichor Holdings, Ltd.

(ICHR) is the stronger pick with 11. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 1% for Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (UCTT). MKS Inc. (MKSI) offers the better valuation at 68. 8x trailing P/E (30. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (UCTT) a "Buy" — based on 12 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, MKS Inc.

(MKSI) is the cheapest at 68. 8x versus Entegris, Inc. at 95. 3x. On forward P/E, Azenta, Inc. is actually cheaper at 23. 7x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, MKS Inc.

(MKSI) delivered a total return of +66. 5%, compared to -81. 0% for Azenta, Inc. (AZTA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UCTT returned +1385% versus AZTA's +123. 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), Azenta, Inc.

(AZTA) is the lower-risk stock at 2. 17β versus Ichor Holdings, Ltd. 's 3. 93β — meaning ICHR is approximately 81% more volatile than AZTA relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 173% for MKS Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Ichor Holdings, Ltd.

(ICHR) is pulling ahead at 11. 6% versus -2. 1% for Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (UCTT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Azenta, Inc. grew EPS 60. 5% year-over-year, compared to -869. 2% for Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MKSI leads at 3. 5% 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.

MKS Inc.

(MKSI) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 5% net margin versus -9. 4% for Azenta, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ENTG leads at 28. 9% versus -4. 1% for ICHR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AZTA leads at 45. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Azenta, Inc.

(AZTA) trades at 23. 7x forward P/E versus 62. 2x for Ichor Holdings, Ltd. — 38. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AZTA: 140. 5% to $44. 67.

In this comparison, MKSI (0.

3% yield), ENTG (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. UCTT, ICHR, AZTA do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.

(UCTT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+1385% 10Y return). Azenta, Inc. (AZTA) carries a higher beta of 2. 17 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (UCTT: +1385%, AZTA: +123. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (UCTT (Technology) and ICHR (Technology) and MKSI (Technology) and AZTA (Healthcare) and ENTG (Technology)), 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.