Which is better, AMAT or QBTS?

On the Buffett-Fit framework, Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) currently grades higher than QBTS — 68/100 (B grade) vs 20/100 (F). That said, "better" depends on which framework you trust — AMAT wins on Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, Joel Greenblatt, Charlie Munger, and Terry Smith; QBTS wins on none. The full pillar breakdown is on this page.

Should I buy AMAT or QBTS?

This page is an educational comparison, not investment advice. Both AMAT and QBTS are graded against the same Buffett 5-pillar framework (moat, earnings durability, management quality, financial health, valuation) plus six other documented investor frameworks. Read the side-by-side breakdown to see which one matches the criteria you care about most — and always do your own research before making any investment decision.

Is AMAT better than QBTS for value investing?

On the Buffett-style value-investing framework, AMAT currently grades higher — 68/100 vs 20/100, a 48-point gap. The gap is driven by which pillars each stock passes; the table on this page shows moat, durability, management, financial health, and valuation side-by-side.

What's the difference between AMAT and QBTS on Warren Buffett's framework?

Both stocks are evaluated on the same five pillars: economic moat (durable competitive advantage), earnings durability (consistent profitability), management quality (capital allocation), financial health (conservative balance sheet), and valuation (margin of safety). AMAT currently scores 68/100 (B grade); QBTS scores 20/100 (F grade). The "Where each wins" section on this page breaks down which pillar each stock dominates.

Which has the stronger moat, AMAT or QBTS?

Moat strength is one of the five pillars in the Buffett-Fit score on this page. AMAT and QBTS are each scored on ROIC sustainability, gross-margin durability, and qualitative signals like brand strength, switching costs, network effects, and regulatory barriers. The pillar breakdown on this page shows the moat sub-score side-by-side so you can see which one has the more durable competitive advantage.

Which is more undervalued, AMAT or QBTS?

Valuation is one of the five Buffett-Fit pillars on this page. Both stocks are scored on owner-earnings yield, price-to-intrinsic-value vs the underlying compounding rate, and the margin of safety relative to a conservative DCF. The valuation sub-score in the table below tells you which one currently trades at a more attractive price relative to its underlying business quality.

Are AMAT and QBTS both Technology stocks?

Yes — both Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) and D-Wave Quantum Inc. (QBTS) operate in the Technology sector. That makes this a direct sector-peer comparison, which is the apples-to-apples way to use the Buffett-Fit framework: the score weighs each stock against its sector's specific quality and valuation benchmarks (sector-relative bonus), so the cross-stock comparison isn't distorted by inter-sector base-rate differences.

Is this AMAT vs QBTS comparison investment advice?

No. This page is an educational pattern-match against documented public frameworks (Buffett, Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Greenblatt, Munger, Smith), not personalised investment advice. The scores reflect how closely each stock matches each framework's documented criteria — they are not buy/hold/sell recommendations. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial adviser for personalised advice.

Stock comparison

Applied Materials

D-Wave Quantum

Scored across Buffett, Graham, Lynch and Greenblatt - plus a side-by-side metric table covering valuation, quality, growth and balance sheet.

AMAT

Applied Materials

Market cap

$346.51B

Sector

Technology

QBTS

D-Wave Quantum

Market cap

$7.47B

Sector

Technology

Overall winner

Applied Materials AMAT

Wins on the combined sum of fit scores across all four strategies. Per-strategy breakdown below.

Fit scores by strategy

Strategy	AMAT	QBTS	Winner
Warren Buffett	68B	20F	AMAT
Benjamin Graham	79B	40D	AMAT
Philip Fisher	58C	40D	AMAT
Peter Lynch	57C	43D	AMAT
Joel Greenblatt	58C	0F	AMAT
Charlie Munger	67B	32F	AMAT
Terry Smith	63C	32F	AMAT

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	AMAT	QBTS
Market cap	$346.51B	$7.47B
P/E (TTM)	40.7x	-
EV/EBIT	41.8x	-
ROIC (TTM)	21.6%	-11.38%
Gross margin	48.96%	66.27%
Net margin	29.31%	-29.57%
Revenue CAGR 5y	5.31%	40.67%
EPS CAGR 5y	7.72%	-
Debt / Equity	0.3x	0.0x
Dividend yield	0.42%	0.0%

Where each one wins

The metrics with the biggest gap between the two - sorted so the most decisive edges read first.

AMAT leads on

ROIC (TTM)21.6%vs -11.38%+153%
Net margin29.31%vs -29.57%+101%
Dividend yield0.42%vs 0.0%+100%
Market cap$346.51Bvs $7.47B+98%

QBTS leads on

EV/EBIT-vs 41.8x+159%
P/E (TTM)-vs 40.7x+150%
Debt / Equity0.0xvs 0.3x+96%
Revenue CAGR 5y40.67%vs 5.31%+87%

Educational tool. Fit scores are deterministic projections from public financials onto each investor's published criteria - not personal recommendations or advice.

Applied Materials

D-Wave Quantum

Fit scores by strategy

Side-by-side metrics

Where each one wins

More like AMAT

More like QBTS

Related on invest-like

Key terms in this analysis