vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Micron Technology (MU) and Qualcomm (QCOM), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Micron Technology is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($13.6B vs $12.3B, roughly 1.1× Qualcomm). Micron Technology runs the higher net margin — 38.4% vs 24.5%, a 13.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Micron Technology posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (56.7% vs 5.0%). Qualcomm produced more free cash flow last quarter ($4.4B vs $3.0B).
Micron Technology, Inc. is an American producer of computer memory and computer data storage including dynamic random-access memory, flash memory, and solid-state drives (SSDs). It is headquartered in Boise, Idaho.
Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software and services related to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standards.
MU vs QCOM — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q1 2026 vs Q1 2026
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $13.6B | $12.3B |
| Net Profit | $5.2B | $3.0B |
| Gross Margin | 56.0% | 54.6% |
| Operating Margin | 45.0% | 27.5% |
| Net Margin | 38.4% | 24.5% |
| Revenue YoY | 56.7% | 5.0% |
| Net Profit YoY | 180.2% | -5.5% |
| EPS (diluted) | $4.60 | $2.78 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $13.6B | $12.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $11.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.4B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $11.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $11.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $9.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $9.4B |
| Q4 25 | $5.2B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-3.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | 56.0% | 54.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 55.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 55.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 55.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 55.8% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 56.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 55.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 56.3% |
| Q4 25 | 45.0% | 27.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 25.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 26.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 28.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 30.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 25.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 23.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 24.9% |
| Q4 25 | 38.4% | 24.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | -27.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 25.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 25.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 27.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 28.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 22.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 24.8% |
| Q4 25 | $4.60 | $2.78 | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $-2.77 | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.43 | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.52 | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.83 | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.57 | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.88 | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $2.06 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $9.7B | $11.8B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $11.2B | $14.8B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $58.8B | $23.1B |
| Total Assets | $86.0B | $53.0B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.19× | 0.64× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $9.7B | $11.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $10.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $10.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $14.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $13.9B |
| Q4 25 | $11.2B | $14.8B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $14.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $14.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $13.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $13.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $13.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $13.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $14.5B |
| Q4 25 | $58.8B | $23.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $21.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $27.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $27.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $26.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $26.3B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $24.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $24.5B |
| Q4 25 | $86.0B | $53.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $50.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $54.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $55.4B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $55.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $55.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $52.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $53.2B |
| Q4 25 | 0.19× | 0.64× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 0.70× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 0.54× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.48× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 0.49× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.51× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 0.53× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 0.59× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $8.4B | $5.0B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $3.0B | $4.4B |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 22.2% | 36.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 39.5% | 4.5% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.61× | 1.65× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $12.9B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $8.4B | $5.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.6B |
| Q4 25 | $3.0B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.6B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $2.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $4.3B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $2.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | 22.2% | 36.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 31.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 24.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 21.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 36.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 23.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 28.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 35.9% |
| Q4 25 | 39.5% | 4.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.8% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 2.4% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.61× | 1.65× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.08× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 0.91× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.44× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 0.91× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.43× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.53× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
MU
| CDBU | $5.7B | 42% |
| NAND Products | $5.0B | 37% |
| AEBU | $2.7B | 20% |
| Other Product Sales | $95.0M | 1% |
QCOM
| Handsets | $7.8B | 64% |
| Io T | $1.7B | 14% |
| Qtl | $1.6B | 13% |
| Automotive | $1.1B | 9% |
