Microchip Technology holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across valuation and growth. ON Semiconductor still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, ON 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 clearest separation starts in valuation, with growth adding a second layer of support. The overall score gap is 20 points in favour of Microchip Technology Incorporated.
Both operate in: Semiconductors
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. MCHP and ON share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Microchip Technology and ON Semiconductor each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
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.
The structural gap is limited here, but current pricing still leans against ON Semiconductor Corporation.
Valuation position uses Forward P/E and peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The peer-relative valuation gap is very wide, with the stronger side also looking meaningfully cheaper.
One company is still expanding while the other is contracting, which creates a very wide growth split.
The lead is built on both valuation and growth — though profitability still provides a counterweight.
Break down the MCHP vs ON comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how MCHP and ON 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.