Big tech compared: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon by the numbers

Five companies — Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon — account for a remarkable share of the value of the US stock market, and between them they touch almost every person who uses the internet. They are often discussed as one trade. Their filings say otherwise. They grow at very different speeds, keep very different shares of their revenue, and are currently making very different bets with their cash. This study puts the five side by side, with Netflix as a point of comparison. Figures are trailing twelve months to each company's latest filing; valuations are at the 14 October 2026 close.

The five on one table

The defining story: what the AI build-out costs in cash

The most important line in these companies' accounts right now is not revenue or profit but capital expenditure. Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon are spending at a scale without precedent on data centres and computing capacity, and it shows up in the gap between profit and free cash flow:

Apple is the outlier because it is not building on the same scale: it converts more than all of its profit into free cash. Amazon spent more on capital projects than its operations generated, leaving free cash flow negative. Alphabet's low conversion has a second cause: part of its net income came from outside its operations, so its profit is larger than the cash its businesses produced.

Whether this spending earns a good return is the central question for investors in four of these five companies. If it does, today's weak cash flow is an investment that will be repaid many times over; if it does not, it is capital spent at the peak of a boom. Filings cannot answer that yet. What they do show is the cost, quarter by quarter, in the cash-flow statement — and that is why we lean on free cash flow yield rather than earnings alone.

Growth and margins: five different businesses

Meta grew fastest, at 19.89% a year, almost entirely from advertising across its apps, and keeps 38.08% of revenue as operating profit. Its earnings per share grew faster still — a case of operating leverage, explained in revenue versus EPS growth.

Microsoft combines growth of 16.12% a year with the highest operating margin of the five, 46.78% — the economics of software and cloud services sold to businesses on long contracts.

Alphabet grew 12.51% a year with a 33.11% margin, from search advertising, YouTube and its cloud business.

Amazon has by far the largest revenue, $775.68bn, but the lowest margin, 12.08%, because most of its sales come from retail, a low-margin business, while much of its profit comes from its cloud division.

Apple is the slowest grower by a wide margin, at 1.81% a year, but converts its revenue into cash with remarkable efficiency and earns a return on invested capital of 84.08%. Its earnings per share grow faster than its sales mainly because it keeps buying back its own shares.

What the valuations assume

Apple carries the highest P/E of the five, 39.33, despite the slowest growth. The market is paying for durability — an enormous installed base of devices, a growing services business, and relentless share buybacks — rather than for growth. Alphabet's P/E of 17.44 looks cheapest, but it is flattered by non-operating gains; on EV/EBITDA, which uses operating profit only, Alphabet's 25.01 is higher than Meta's 17.88 or Microsoft's 20.5. Amazon's P/E of 20.44 is similarly helped by investment gains, while its negative free cash flow means none of its valuation is supported by cash today. Our EV/EBITDA guide explains why the two multiples diverge.

How the head-to-heads come out

The six-factor scores among these companies are close, because each wins different factors:

• Apple vs Microsoft: Apple 3.5, Microsoft 2.5 — Apple wins quality and income, Microsoft growth.
• Microsoft vs Alphabet and Apple vs Alphabet: 3–3 draws.
• Meta vs Alphabet: Meta 3.5, Alphabet 2.5.
• Alphabet vs Amazon: Alphabet 4, Amazon 2.
• Amazon vs Microsoft: Microsoft 4, Amazon 2.
• Meta vs Netflix: Meta 3.5, Netflix 2.5.

Draws and narrow wins are the honest result for companies this strong: on our rules, they excel at different things. The six-factor score explained shows how ties arise.

Netflix: a different model in the same neighbourhood

Netflix is the useful contrast. It spends heavily on content rather than data centres, and its 29.68% operating margin and 33.6% return on invested capital show a business that has moved from cash-hungry growth to steady cash generation, with free cash flow of $11.15bn against net income of $13.65bn. It pays no dividend but bought back shares worth 3.38% of its value over the year.

Reading these companies well

Three habits help. Track capital spending alongside profit, because for now it is the number that will decide returns. Use operating income rather than net income when comparing valuations, because investment gains currently inflate several of these companies' earnings. And compare each company with its own business model rather than with the others: an advertising platform, a software vendor, a retailer with a cloud arm and a device maker do not deserve the same multiple just because they are all large. For how margins compare across industries more broadly, see operating margin by business model.