Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NVDA scored 86.5, ALAB scored 70.7 — NVDA leads.
Compare another set
NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
86.5
$229.28 · $5.5T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.8
NVDA leads
ALAB
Astera Labs, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
70.7
$342.21 · $59.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNVDA29.0x
Fastest growthALAB+98.5%
Strongest balance sheetALAB0.03
Highest qualityNVDA86 / 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)
NVDA
stronger →← stronger
ALAB
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
70
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
76
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
NVDA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NVDA
ALAB
$127.0bA
FCF
$277mC
+83.4%A
Rev
+98.5%A
0.17B+
D/E
0.03A-
29.0xB
P/E
168.6xD
0.28A
PEG
2.88C
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
NVDA
ALAB
206% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1406% above
~48%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-75%
1-yr DCF upside
-95%
-67%
5-yr DCF upside
-93%
-54%
10-yr DCF upside
-91%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NVDA
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
ALAB
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
The companies
NVDANVIDIA Corporation
Semiconductors · $229.28 · beta 2.22
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $5.5T. 6% off the 52-week high of $243.37. Revenue growing +83% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.28 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 59 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $328.72 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 64% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 84% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $5.5T 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 2.22 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 18.3x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
ALABAstera Labs, Inc.
Semiconductors · $342.21 · beta 3.69
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $59.4b. Down 31% from 52-week high of $499.48 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +98% — in hypergrowth territory. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $391.77 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 21% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $59.4b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 168.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 31% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 3.69 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 NVDA and ALAB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.8 points in favor of NVDA. The widest single difference is Value, where NVDA leads by 25.3 points.
ValueNVDA 75.6 · ALAB 50.3NVDA +25.3
QualityNVDA 85.7 · ALAB 70.3NVDA +15.4
GrowthNVDA 99.8 · ALAB 100.0level
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 NVDA or ALAB the better stock?
NVDA scores higher: NVDA 86.5, ALAB 70.7 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 NVDA and ALAB differ most?
The widest gap is value, where NVDA leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. NVDA also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are NVDA and ALAB 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.