Microchip Technology holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and growth adding further support. Lattice Semiconductor still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Lattice Semiconductor carries the stronger setup — intact trend against Microchip Technology's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with Microchip Technology, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight. The overall score gap is 22 points in favour of Microchip Technology Incorporated.
Both operate in: Semiconductors
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. LSCC and MCHP share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Lattice Semiconductor and Microchip Technology each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against Lattice Semiconductor Corporation.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) and Forward P/E where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 22.8 turns lower.
On the market side, Lattice Semiconductor carries the stronger trend while Microchip Technology's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Valuation is the clearest driver of the lead, with growth adding further support — though stability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the LSCC vs MCHP comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LSCC and MCHP 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.