NetApp holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across stability and valuation. Applied Materials does not offset that deficit through any equally strong structural edge elsewhere. In the market, Applied Materials carries the stronger setup — intact trend against NetApp's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with NetApp, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The clearest separation starts in stability, but valuation adds another real layer to the result. NetApp, Inc. leads by 20 points on the overall comparison score.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
This level of similarity signals a strong structural match, even though some dimensions still separate the two companies.
Most of the shared profile comes through investment intensity and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
NetApp, Inc. looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The stability gap is very wide, with the stronger side looking materially steadier through time.
Earnings growth also leans the other way, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The lead is built on both stability and valuation, making it broader than a single-dimension result.
Break down the AMAT vs NTAP comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AMAT and NTAP each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.