MU Holdings, Inc. (MU)vs QCOM Holdings, Inc. (QCOM)

Quick verdict

MU Holdings, Inc. (MU) and QCOM Holdings, Inc. (QCOM) appeal to different investors. On our six-factor framework, MU scores 4 and QCOM scores 2. QCOM 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

MU Holdings, Inc. operates in Software—Infrastructure (Technology), while QCOM Holdings, Inc. sits in Software—Infrastructure (Technology). Because both compete in the same sector, this is a direct head-to-head and the financial differences below are especially meaningful. MU carries a beta of 1.76 versus 1.14 for QCOM, meaning MU has historically been the more volatile of the two.

Valuation

On valuation, QCOM is the cheaper stock. MU trades on a forward P/E of 29.96 and EV/EBITDA of 32.42, against n/a and 12.51 for QCOM. Price-to-sales is 4.11 vs 1.25, and free-cash-flow yield is 5.5% vs 1.2%. 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. MU has compounded revenue at 20.5% over three years with EPS growth of 13.3%, while QCOM has delivered 10.8% revenue and 10.4% 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. MU posts a 44.1% operating margin, 24.8% return on equity and 22.2% return on invested capital. QCOM posts -7.8%, -15.3% and -11.5% 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. MU carries net-debt/EBITDA of -0.74x with a current ratio of 1.58, versus 1.67x and 2.20 for QCOM. 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 MU returned 50.4% against 63.1% for QCOM; on a three-year annualised basis it is 27.0% vs 13.4%. MU yields 0.2% and QCOM yields 2.4%. 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, QCOM is the better fit on today's multiples. Growth investors will likely prefer MU, which is expanding faster. Income investors should lean toward QCOM 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: QCOM
• Growth: MU
• Income: QCOM
• Quality: MU

Frequently asked questions

Is MU or QCOM the better buy right now?

Neither is universally "better." MU scores 4 and QCOM scores 2 on our six-factor framework. QCOM is cheaper, MU grows faster, and MU is higher quality — so the right pick depends on your objective.

Which stock is cheaper, MU or QCOM?

QCOM is the cheaper stock across forward P/E (29.96 vs n/a), EV/EBITDA (32.42 vs 12.51) and price-to-sales (4.11 vs 1.25).

Which has grown faster, MU or QCOM?

MU has the stronger growth profile, with three-year revenue CAGR of 20.5% for MU versus 10.8% for QCOM.

Which stock pays a bigger dividend?

MU yields 0.2% and QCOM yields 2.4%, so QCOM is the stronger income choice.

Related comparisons

• AAPL vs MU
• AAPL vs QCOM
• AMD vs MU
• AMD vs QCOM
• AVGO vs MU
• AVGO vs QCOM