Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN)vs Micron Technology, Inc. (MU)

Quick verdict

Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) and Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) appeal to different investors. On our six-factor framework, AMZN scores 1 and MU scores 5. MU looks cheaper on the multiples that matter, while MU grows faster and MU earns higher returns on capital. Overall, MU edges this comparison, but the right pick depends on whether you prioritise value, growth, income or balance-sheet safety.

2-year relative performance

At-a-glance comparison

Business model and revenue mix

Amazon.com, Inc. operates in Specialty Retail (Consumer Cyclical), while Micron Technology, Inc. sits in Semiconductors (Technology). The two operate in different sectors, so cyclicality and end-market exposure differ — factor that into any portfolio overlap. AMZN carries a beta of 1.46 versus 1.46 for MU, meaning AMZN has historically been the more volatile of the two.

Valuation

On valuation, MU is the cheaper stock. AMZN trades on a forward P/E of 45.95 and EV/EBITDA of 12.07, against 31.64 and 20.54 for MU. Price-to-sales is 3.77 vs 12.62, and free-cash-flow yield is 2.0% vs 5.9%. A higher multiple is only justified if the company can sustain faster growth or wider margins, which is exactly what the next sections test.

Growth profile

MU is the faster grower. AMZN has compounded revenue at 12.4% over three years with EPS growth of 28.8%, while MU has delivered 28.5% revenue and 21.1% EPS growth. Growth like this is the single biggest driver of long-term returns, but it also tends to come with a richer valuation, so it must be weighed against the multiples above.

Profitability and quality

On profitability and quality, MU is stronger. AMZN posts a 12.1% operating margin, 30.5% return on equity and 8.5% return on invested capital. MU posts 29.6%, 40.6% and 18.5% respectively. Return on invested capital above roughly 15% is a hallmark of a durable competitive advantage, so this metric deserves particular attention.

Balance-sheet risk

MU has the safer balance sheet. AMZN carries net-debt/EBITDA of 0.86x with a current ratio of 1.03, versus -1.05x and 1.50 for MU. Lower leverage gives a company more room to invest through a downturn and reduces the risk of dilution or distress.

Price performance and shareholder returns

Over the past year AMZN returned 4.0% against 117.8% for MU; on a three-year annualised basis it is 42.8% vs 47.7%. AMZN yields 0.0% and MU yields 0.0%. Past performance never guarantees future results, but the multi-year track record shows how the market has rewarded each business so far.

Which stock fits which investor

For value-oriented investors, MU is the better fit on today's multiples. Growth investors will likely prefer MU, which is expanding faster. Income investors should lean toward AMZN for its higher shareholder yield, while investors who prize quality-at-a-reasonable-price will favour MU for its superior returns on capital. This is a comparison of facts, not a recommendation — your time horizon, risk tolerance and existing holdings should drive the final decision.

• Value: MU
• Growth: MU
• Income: AMZN
• Quality: MU

Frequently asked questions

Is AMZN or MU the better buy right now?

Neither is universally "better." AMZN scores 1 and MU scores 5 on our six-factor framework. MU is cheaper, MU grows faster, and MU is higher quality — so the right pick depends on your objective.

Which stock is cheaper, AMZN or MU?

MU is the cheaper stock across forward P/E (45.95 vs 31.64), EV/EBITDA (12.07 vs 20.54) and price-to-sales (3.77 vs 12.62).

Which has grown faster, AMZN or MU?

MU has the stronger growth profile, with three-year revenue CAGR of 12.4% for AMZN versus 28.5% for MU.

Which stock pays a bigger dividend?

AMZN yields 0.0% and MU yields 0.0%, so AMZN is the stronger income choice.

Related comparisons

• AAPL vs AMZN
• AAPL vs MU
• AMD vs AMZN
• AMD vs MU
• AMZN vs AVGO
• AMZN vs BABA