Microchip Technology leads structurally, with valuation as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. MACOM Technology Solutions still leads on growth and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, MACOM Technology Solutions 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.
Both operate in: Semiconductors
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. MCHP and MTSI share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Microchip Technology and MTSI 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.
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. still looks cheaper, even though Microchip Technology Incorporated remains structurally stronger.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 16.6 turns lower.
A meaningful counterforce remains in stability, which keeps the comparison from looking completely one-sided.
The valuation edge is decisive, even though current pricing and stability still lean somewhat toward MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc..
Break down the MCHP vs MTSI comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MCHP and MTSI 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.