KLA Corporation's functional peer companies ranked by peer score — growth, valuation, profitability and stability compared.
| Comparison | KLAC peer score | |
|---|---|---|
|
KLA Corporation vs Lam Research Corporation
|
56 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs ASML Holding N.V.
|
56 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Ubiquiti Inc.
|
57 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Fair Isaac Corporation
|
63 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs ASML Holding N.V.
|
51 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
|
47 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs VeriSign, Inc.
|
72 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Garmin Ltd.
|
56 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Adobe Inc.
|
73 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Arista Networks, Inc.
|
66 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs ATOSS Software SE
|
66 | Compare → |
|
KLA Corporation vs Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
|
49 | Compare → |
View the complete KLA Corporation report including all peer dimensions.
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.