Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MU scored 82.1, NXPI scored 53.0 — MU leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MU's fundamentals are as of September 2026, but NXPI's are as of March 2026 — a 5-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
MU
Micron Technology, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
82.1
$1,029.00 · $1.2T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.1
MU leads
NXPI
NXP Semiconductors N.V.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
53
$227.52 · $57.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMU13.8x
Fastest growthMU+256.3%
Strongest balance sheetMU0.04
Highest qualityMU82 / 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)
MU
stronger →← stronger
NXPI
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
55
72
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
36
MU is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MU
NXPI
$59.0bA
FCF
$2.7bB
+256.3%A
Rev
+2.4%C
0.04A-
D/E
0.93C+
13.8xA-
P/E
19.4xB+
0.16A
PEG
0.46A
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
MU
NXPI
62% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
112% above
~25%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~27%/yr
-47%
1-yr DCF upside
-55%
-38%
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
-23%
10-yr DCF upside
-50%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MU
No notable signals flagged.
NXPI
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
MUMicron Technology, Inc.
Semiconductors · $1,029.00 · beta 2.23
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $1.2T. 18% off the 52-week high of $1255.00. Revenue growing +256% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.16 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 46 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,555 (implying +51% upside).
Moat
Net margin 64% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 61% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $1.2T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Beta 2.23 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
NXPINXP Semiconductors N.V.
Semiconductors · $227.52 · beta 1.81
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $57.4b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $339.95 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.46 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $306.72 (implying +35% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 102% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.81 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
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 MU and NXPI diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.1 points in favor of MU. The widest single difference is Growth, where MU leads by 38.2 points.
GrowthMU 93.6 · NXPI 55.4MU +38.2
ValueMU 72.3 · NXPI 35.5MU +36.8
QualityMU 81.9 · NXPI 75.7MU +6.2
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 MU or NXPI the better stock?
MU scores higher: MU 82.1, NXPI 53.0 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 MU and NXPI differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where MU leads by 38 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MU leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are MU and NXPI 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.