Which is better, AMAT or MGIC?

On the Buffett-Fit framework, Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) currently grades higher than MGIC — 76/100 (B grade) vs 51/100 (C). 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; MGIC wins on none. The full pillar breakdown is on this page.

Should I buy AMAT or MGIC?

This page is an educational comparison, not investment advice. Both AMAT and MGIC 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 MGIC for value investing?

On the Buffett-style value-investing framework, AMAT currently grades higher — 76/100 vs 51/100, a 25-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 MGIC 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 76/100 (B grade); MGIC scores 51/100 (C grade). The "Where each wins" section on this page breaks down which pillar each stock dominates.

Which has the stronger moat, AMAT or MGIC?

Moat strength is one of the five pillars in the Buffett-Fit score on this page. AMAT and MGIC 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 MGIC?

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 MGIC both Technology stocks?

Yes — both Applied Materials, Inc. (AMAT) and Magic Software Enterprises Ltd. (MGIC) 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 MGIC 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

Magic Software Enterprises

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

$342.97B

Sector

Technology

MGIC

Magic Software Enterprises

Market cap

$853.35M

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	MGIC	Winner
Warren Buffett	76B	51C	AMAT
Benjamin Graham	87A	62C	AMAT
Philip Fisher	65B	35D	AMAT
Peter Lynch	65B	45D	AMAT
Joel Greenblatt	66C	29F	AMAT
Charlie Munger	75B	31F	AMAT
Terry Smith	71B	33F	AMAT

Side-by-side metrics

Metric	AMAT	MGIC
Market cap	$342.97B	$853.35M
P/E (TTM)	40.0x	21.3x
EV/EBIT	41.0x	13.8x
ROIC (TTM)	21.6%	12.82%
Gross margin	48.96%	28.04%
Net margin	29.31%	6.64%
Revenue CAGR 5y	5.31%	10.46%
EPS CAGR 5y	7.72%	11.23%
Debt / Equity	0.3x	0.3x
Dividend yield	0.45%	2.57%

Where each one wins

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

AMAT leads on

Market cap$342.97Bvs $853.35M+100%
Net margin29.31%vs 6.64%+77%
Gross margin48.96%vs 28.04%+43%
ROIC (TTM)21.6%vs 12.82%+41%

MGIC leads on

Dividend yield2.57%vs 0.45%+83%
EV/EBIT13.8xvs 41.0x+66%
Revenue CAGR 5y10.46%vs 5.31%+49%
P/E (TTM)21.3xvs 40.0x+47%

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

Applied Materials

Magic Software Enterprises

Fit scores by strategy

Side-by-side metrics

Where each one wins

More like AMAT

More like MGIC

Related on invest-like

Key terms in this analysis