Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MCHP scored 36.4, CRDO scored 76.9 — CRDO leads.
Compare another set
MCHP
Microchip Technology Incorporated
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
36.4
$75.55 · $41.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
40.5
CRDO leads
CRDO
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
76.9
$216.55 · $40.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCRDO76.8x
Fastest growthCRDO+205.7%
Strongest balance sheetCRDO0.01
Highest qualityCRDO77 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
MCHP
stronger →← stronger
CRDO
57
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
62
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
14
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
CRDO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MCHP
CRDO
$1.1bC+
FCF
$439mC
+7.1%B
Rev
+205.7%A
0.84C+
D/E
0.01A
111.1xD
P/E
76.8xC
0.23A
PEG
1.43B
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
MCHP
CRDO
270% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
551% above
~43%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-74%
1-yr DCF upside
-88%
-73%
5-yr DCF upside
-85%
-72%
10-yr DCF upside
-78%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MCHP
No notable signals flagged.
CRDO
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
MCHPMicrochip Technology Incorporated
Semiconductors · $75.55 · beta 1.76
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $41.0b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $105.91 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.23 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $107.84 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($675m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong. Semiconductor moat is process-design IP plus customer qualification timelines — once designed in, the company captures multiple product cycles before a competitor can displace.
Risk
Trailing P/E 111.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.76 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. ROE 7% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
CRDOCredo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Semiconductors · $216.55 · beta 3.25
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $40.7b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $308.67 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +206% — in hypergrowth territory. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $279.09 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Semiconductor moat is process-design IP plus customer qualification timelines — once designed in, the company captures multiple product cycles before a competitor can displace.
Risk
Trailing P/E 76.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 3.25 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 25.6x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where MCHP and CRDO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 40.5 points in favor of CRDO. The widest single difference is Value, where CRDO leads by 45.8 points.
ValueMCHP 13.5 · CRDO 59.3CRDO +45.8
GrowthMCHP 62.2 · CRDO 100.0CRDO +37.8
QualityMCHP 57.5 · CRDO 76.8CRDO +19.3
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is CRDO or MCHP the better stock?
CRDO scores higher: CRDO 76.9, MCHP 36.4 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do CRDO and MCHP differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CRDO leads by 46 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CRDO leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CRDO and MCHP scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.