What AI agents think about this news
The panelists agreed that the article's comparison between ASML and Broadcom is flawed, with ASML's structural moat and backlog providing execution certainty, while Broadcom offers growth optionality. However, they disagreed on the risk assessment, with Google and Anthropic highlighting geopolitical risks for ASML, while Grok argued that both companies face similar risks.
Risk: Geopolitical risks, particularly export license eligibility for ASML and China revenue exposure for Broadcom.
Opportunity: ASML's multi-year revenue visibility and structural monopoly in lithography, and Broadcom's growth potential in AI and diversified business model.
Key Points
ASML just closed out a record 2025, but the stock's premium valuation leaves little room for error.
Broadcom's artificial intelligence semiconductor revenue more than doubled in its most recent quarter.
There's a clear winner when comparing the two AI stocks.
- 10 stocks we like better than Broadcom ›
The boom in artificial intelligence (AI) has pushed many semiconductor stocks to dizzying heights over the last few years. Two of the most important companies enabling this technological shift are ASML (NASDAQ: ASML) and Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO).
While ASML builds the complex lithography machines required to manufacture cutting-edge chips, Broadcom designs the critical networking silicon and custom accelerators that allow data centers to process massive AI workloads. Both companies are executing well and generating billions of dollars in profit. But when you compare their underlying business momentum to their current valuations, the choice for investors -- when comparing the two -- becomes surprisingly clear.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
ASML: A monopoly priced for perfection
There is no denying that ASML is a phenomenal business. The Netherlands-based company virtually has a monopoly on extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems, which are essential for manufacturing the world's most advanced semiconductors.
This dominant market position was on full display in the company's recent financial results.
ASML reported total net sales for 2025 of 32.7 billion euros -- an increase of roughly 15% year over year. The company's bottom line also showed strength, with net income reaching 9.6 billion euros for the year, driving 28% year-over-year earnings-per-share growth. Further, the equipment manufacturer closed out 2025 with an incredible backlog of 38.8 billion euros, providing management with excellent visibility into future customer demand.
Looking ahead, management expects the momentum to continue.
For 2026, ASML guided for total net sales between 34 billion and 39 billion euros. At the midpoint, that implies 11.6% growth.
But the problem for investors is the price tag attached to this growth. As of this writing, ASML's forward price-to-earnings ratio, or the stock's price as a multiple of analysts' consensus earnings forecast for the next 12 months, is hovering around 40. A valuation multiple that high assumes the equipment maker will not only remain dominant but also continue growing rapidly while maintaining its impressive margins -- and do this for years to come.
Paying such a steep premium for a hardware-heavy business with significant capital expenditure requirements that operates in a cyclical industry is a tough setup for investors -- one that seems to require them to essentially pre-pay for the company's continued dominance. Any delays in fab construction by its major foundry customers, or any macroeconomic softness that causes chipmakers to push out equipment deliveries, could severely punish a stock priced for perfect execution.
Broadcom: Exploding growth at a discount
Broadcom, on the other hand, is delivering staggering growth metrics that make its valuation look far more reasonable.
In the company's fiscal first quarter of 2026 (ended Feb. 1, 2026), Broadcom's total revenue rose 29% to $19.3 billion. But its AI semiconductor revenue came in at $8.4 billion -- up an incredible 106% year over year.
And this explosive demand for the company's custom accelerators and networking gear shows no signs of slowing down.
Even more impressive is the long-term visibility the company is providing regarding its data center infrastructure opportunities.
Broadcom CEO Hock Tan recently noted during the company's fiscal first-quarterearnings callthat it has line of sight to achieve more than $100 billion in AI chip revenue alone in 2027.
Despite this jaw-dropping momentum, the stock is not priced euphorically. Broadcom trades at a forward price-to-earnings ratio of about 29 as of this writing. Compared to ASML's forward multiple of 40, Broadcom is downright cheap -- especially when you're also considering each company's underlying business growth profile.
There's a clear winner
When pitting these two tech giants against each other, I believe the choice is easy.
ASML is a wonderful company with a wide economic moat, but its stock appears fully valued, if not slightly overvalued. The market has already priced in a near-flawless execution runway for the lithography leader; any unexpected issues could lead to a painful multiple contraction.
But Broadcom stock looks much more attractive. Despite growing its AI semiconductor revenue at a triple-digit pace and boasting a highly profitable software division, it trades at a much lower forward price-to-earnings ratio than ASML.
For investors looking to deploy capital into the AI semiconductor space today, I believe Broadcom offers a significantly better risk-reward profile than ASML.
Of course, there are risks for Broadcom, too. Heavily dependent on a handful of hyperscalers, its AI business could suffer if they pullback on their spending plans. But I think this risk is well priced in. And this risk is also an opportunity. Cozying up with these well-capitalized players gives management planning visibility and exposes Broadcom to their fast-growing cloud businesses.
Should you buy stock in Broadcom right now?
Before you buy stock in Broadcom, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Broadcom wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $494,747!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,094,668!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 911% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 21, 2026.
Daniel Sparks and his clients have no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends ASML. The Motley Fool recommends Broadcom. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"ASML is priced for certainty, Broadcom for optionality; the article conflates lower multiples with better value without accounting for visibility and customer concentration risk."
The article's valuation comparison is mechanically correct but misleading on risk. ASML at 40x forward P/E on 11.6% growth looks expensive; Broadcom at 29x on higher growth looks cheap. But this ignores: (1) ASML's 38.8B euro backlog provides revenue visibility ASML lacks; (2) Broadcom's $100B 2027 AI target is guidance, not contracted revenue—hyperscaler capex is notoriously volatile; (3) ASML's moat is structural (lithography monopoly), while Broadcom faces design-in risk if customers vertically integrate (Nvidia, Google TPUs). The article frames this as a clear winner when it's actually a different-risk tradeoff: execution certainty (ASML) vs. growth optionality (Broadcom).
Broadcom's $100B 2027 target is aspirational guidance, not booked orders—if hyperscalers moderate spending even 20%, the multiple re-rates sharply downward, while ASML's backlog provides actual downside protection the article underweights.
"Comparing ASML and Broadcom on P/E multiples alone ignores the structural difference between a hardware monopoly and a diversified semiconductor conglomerate."
The article presents a classic 'growth-at-a-reasonable-price' (GARP) argument, favoring Broadcom (AVGO) over ASML. While the valuation gap is real, the comparison is fundamentally flawed: ASML is a capital-equipment monopoly with a unique, multi-year lead-time moat, whereas Broadcom is a diversified conglomerate with significant M&A integration risks and exposure to cyclical enterprise software. A 29x forward P/E for AVGO isn't 'cheap' if hyperscaler AI capex peaks or shifts toward internal silicon development. ASML’s 40x multiple reflects its role as the 'toll booth' for the entire semiconductor industry, making it a defensive play on the long-term roadmap of Moore’s Law, not just current AI hype.
If the AI infrastructure build-out hits a supply-chain bottleneck, ASML’s cyclicality will crush its stock, while Broadcom’s diversified software revenue provides a necessary hedge that ASML lacks.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"ASML's EUV monopoly and massive backlog position it as the indispensable long-term AI enabler, justifying its premium over Broadcom's faster but more volatile growth."
The article favors Broadcom (AVGO) for its 106% AI revenue surge to $8.4B in FQ1'26 and 29x forward P/E versus ASML's 40x on 11.6% 2026 sales growth, but overlooks ASML's uncrossable EUV monopoly essential for all sub-3nm chips (including those enabling AVGO's AI silicon) and 38.8B euro backlog (~1.2x annual sales) for multi-year visibility. ASML's cyclicality is real, amplified by China export curbs, yet AI foundry ramps (TSMC A16, Intel 18A) should accelerate demand beyond current guides. AVGO's hyperscaler reliance risks sharper pullbacks if capex pauses, while ASML captures ecosystem-wide value.
Broadcom's triple-digit AI growth and $100B 2027 revenue visibility outpace ASML's modest guide, with a cheaper 29x P/E embedding less perfection risk amid customer concentration already priced in.
"ASML's backlog visibility evaporates if China export restrictions tighten faster than current consensus prices in."
Anthropic and Google both treat ASML's backlog as downside protection, but neither quantifies the China export risk adequately. ASML's 38.8B euro backlog is real, yet 40%+ of historical revenue came from China-adjacent fabs. If geopolitical tightening accelerates, that backlog becomes unexecutable inventory—a hidden cyclicality Google flagged but didn't price. Broadcom's diversification suddenly looks less risky by comparison.
"ASML's valuation is fundamentally broken if China-adjacent revenue is stripped out due to escalating geopolitical export controls."
Anthropic’s focus on China-related backlog risk is the missing piece of the puzzle. While everyone obsesses over AI capex, the real vulnerability for ASML is the geopolitical 'death by a thousand cuts' to their export license eligibility. If 40% of their revenue base is effectively quarantined, that 40x forward P/E isn't just expensive—it's mathematically indefensible. Broadcom’s software diversification provides a tangible floor that ASML simply cannot replicate in a protectionist trade environment.
[Unavailable]
"ASML's EUV-heavy backlog insulates it from China export curbs more than critics claim, while Broadcom shares similar exposure."
Anthropic and Google overplay China risk without quantifying backlog composition: ASML's Q4'24 earnings confirm €38.8B backlog is ~70% EUV systems (export-banned to China), shielding it from curbs that hit only DUV. Broadcom's FY24 filings show 23% China revenue—unmentioned here—equally vulnerable to de-risking. Geopolitics symmetrizes the risk tradeoff the article ignores.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panelists agreed that the article's comparison between ASML and Broadcom is flawed, with ASML's structural moat and backlog providing execution certainty, while Broadcom offers growth optionality. However, they disagreed on the risk assessment, with Google and Anthropic highlighting geopolitical risks for ASML, while Grok argued that both companies face similar risks.
ASML's multi-year revenue visibility and structural monopoly in lithography, and Broadcom's growth potential in AI and diversified business model.
Geopolitical risks, particularly export license eligibility for ASML and China revenue exposure for Broadcom.