Kla's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Kla (KLAC) against its publicly traded competitors: sales growth, net income, profitability, valuation and market share, plus each peer's market capitalization, revenue, income and employees. Free below: the top 5 peers. Subscriber access adds the full competitor list and CSV downloads.
Key Findings: Kla vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 14,506M vs 53,088M combined for its competitors (21.5% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+14.1% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+16.4%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Kla generated 28.9% revenue growth year over year in Q1 2026, vs 35.5% for its competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its 37.4% net margin compares with 25.8% for the peer group.
- Scale: Kla ranks #2 of 21 companies by market capitalization in the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry, holding 32.5% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Kla accounted for 21.1% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 22.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.85M compares with $1.60M for the peer group (0.5x).
- Structure: Kla operates in the following segments: Semiconductor Process Control, PCB and Component Inspection, Specialty Semiconductor Process.
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
KLAC Sales vs. its Competitors, Q1 2026
Kla reported revenue growth of 28.86 % year on year in Q1 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 35.51 %.
With a net margin of 37.44 %, Kla achieved higher profitability than its competitors (25.75 %).
Kla generated 21.12 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 21.98 % a year earlier.
API endpoints for this dataset
Kla vs. its Competitors, Q1 2026
Revenue growth, year on year
Net income growth, year on year
Net margin
Revenue run-rate vs trailing 12 months
TTM net margin
TTM = trailing twelve months. Run-rate annualizes the latest quarter (×4) and compares it to TTM. In millions of $. High-Confidence Competitors are named as a competitor directly in Kla reports; Similar-Size Competitors are the closest peers by market-cap rank within the same industry; Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors are the closest peers by combined revenue growth, operating margin and ROIC, all independent of the competitor list.
TTM revenue, latest-quarter run-rate and net income/margin benchmarked across Kla and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (2) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Kla's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry grew revenue 14.1% year over year, combined, vs 28.9% for Kla. Kla's share of combined industry revenue moved from 14.39% to 16.25%, a gain of 1.86 percentage points.
Kla's Competitor Quality Breadth
Group definitions: see Methodology: Performance Group Definitions.
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Competitors combined (32) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (7) | ||||
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Altman Z-Score is not shown here: it is not populated in the underlying data for any company. Percentages are of companies in each group that report the relevant metric, not of the full group size.
KLAC Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
KLAC Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
KLAC Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Skywater Technology Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Aehr Test Systems | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Transcat Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Kulicke And Soffa Industries Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Kla's best-performing competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Kla's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
The worldwide market for process control and yield management systems is highly
competitive. In each of our product markets, we face competition from established
and potential competitors, some of which may have greater financial, research,
engineering, manufacturing and marketing resources than we have, such as Applied
Materials, Inc., ASML Holding N.V. and Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation.
We may also face future competition from new market entrants from other overseas
and domestic sources. We expect our competitors to continue to improve the design
and performance of their current products and processes and to introduce new
products and processes with improved price and performance characteristics.
We believe that, to remain competitive, we will require significant financial
resources to offer a broad range of products, to maintain customer service and
support centers worldwide, and to invest in product and process research and
development.
We believe that, while price and delivery are important competitive factors, the customers’ overriding requirement is for systems that easily and effectively incorporate automated and highly accurate inspection and metrology capabilities into their existing manufacturing processes to enhance productivity. Significant competitive factors in the market for process control and yield management systems include system performance, ease of use, reliability, interoperability with the existing installed base and technical service and support, as well as overall cost of ownership.
Management believes that we are well positioned in the market with respect to both our products and services. However, any loss of competitive position could negatively impact our prices, customer orders, revenues, gross margins and market share, any of which would negatively impact our operating results and financial condition.
Publicly Traded Peers of Kla Corporation
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
 Kla Corporation |
181,569.25 | 14,505.80 |
 Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited |
1,947,076.89 | 121,423.20 |
 Asml Holding Nv |
554,085.28 | 36,921.92 |
 Applied Materials Inc |
266,172.00 | 30,837.00 |
 Lam Research Corporation |
251,706.14 | 26,127.94 |
 Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd |
140,106.76 | 20,573.41 |
| SUBTOTAL | 3,681,924.04 | 520,028.18 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Kla Corporation.
Sources: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Kla Corporation versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Kla's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from Kla reports and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Onto Innovation Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Intevac Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Nova Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Soluna Holdings Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Applied Materials | Company report | 85% |
| Camtek Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| AKT Display Group | Company report | 85% |
| Cowin DST Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| ADP Engineering Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Charm Engineering Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| EO Technics Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Digital Imaging Technology Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Advanced Modular Systems | Company report | 85% |
| Favite Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Contrel Technology Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| HB Technology Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Top Engineering Co. Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Electro Scientific Industries | Company report | 85% |
| On Semiconductor Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Pcb Bancorp | Company report | 85% |
| Asml Holding Nv | Company report | 85% |
| Kulicke And Soffa Industries Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Pdf Solutions Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Lam Research Corporation | Company report | 85% |
| Viavi Solutions Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Teradyne Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc | Company report | 85% |
| Tower Semiconductor Ltd | Company report | 85% |
| Aehr Test Systems | Company report | 85% |
| Formfactor inc | Company report | 85% |
| Agilent Technologies inc | Company report | 85% |
| Cohu Inc | Company report | 85% |
Company report basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Kla's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: see Methodology: Peer & Competitor Identification, Sourcing.
Kla's Business Segment Mix vs Peers
Revenue by operating segment or division, as named and reported by each company. Segment names are the filer's own and are not standardized across companies. Do not assume a same-named or similarly-named segment is defined identically between two companies. Shares are of each company's own total revenue and are not required to sum to 100% (intersegment revenue, unallocated items).| Company | Largest Segment |
|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | Semiconductor Process Control 90.77 % |
| Applied Materials Inc | Semiconductor Systems 75.41 % |
| Lam Research Corporation | Reportable 100.00 % |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc | Reportable 100.00 % |
| Agilent Technologies inc | Agilent CrossLab 41.36 % |
| Teradyne Inc | Semiconductor Test 82.09 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's reports (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API, leaf-level reportable segments only (parent roll-up segments are excluded where sub-segments are separately disclosed).
Kla's Productivity vs Peers Comparison
Revenue and income per employee, trailing 12 months, in $; market cap in millions of $| Company | Market Cap | Revenue / Employee | Income / Employee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | 181,569 | 853,282 | 309,313 |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | 1,947,077 | 1,713,299 | 762,463 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 554,085 | 835,168 | 245,755 |
| Applied Materials Inc | 266,172 | 844,849 | 253,890 |
| Lam Research Corporation | 251,706 | 1,121,371 | 362,656 |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | 140,107 | 1,442,938 | 92,106 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 3,500,355 | 1,596,592 | 285,906 |
Kla's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent report. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | China 34.47 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Rest of Europe and Middle East 1.43 % |
| Applied Materials Inc | Taiwan 27.24 % |
| Lam Research Corporation | China 35.11 % |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc | United States 41.27 % |
| Agilent Technologies inc | Americas 41.63 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's reports (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Kla's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 20 companies in Kla's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Kla ranks #2 of 20 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 32.49 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 3,267, indicating a highly concentrated market structure (see Methodology: Market Structure & Concentration).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 257,756 | 45.82 % |
| 2 | Kla Corporation | 182,756 | 32.49 % |
| 3 | Rockwell Automation Inc | 41,946 | 7.46 % |
| 4 | Coherent Corp | 37,673 | 6.70 % |
| 5 | Trimble Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Nova Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Onto Innovation Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Mirion Technologies Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Camtek Ltd | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | 908 Devices inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Kla's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-11-06.
Kla's Same-Size Peers & Stock Performance
Peers chosen by closeness in market-cap rank within the same industry classification (not the named-competitor list above). Trailing 12-month total return, 3-month price momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio vs the broad U.S. market.| Rank | Company | Market Cap | TTM Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 257,756 | 21.35 % |
| 2 | Kla Corporation | 182,756 | 13.82 % |
| 3 | Rockwell Automation Inc | 41,946 | 5.84 % |
| 4 | Coherent Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 5 | Trimble Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 6 | Nova Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 7 | Onto Innovation Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Kla's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-11-06. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Kla's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (36 companies). See the full Scientific & Technical Instruments industry profitability benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 61.47 % | 38.96 % (avg) | +22.5 pp |
| Operating Margin | - | industry median | - |
| EBITDA Margin | 48.55 % | 4.25 % (avg) | +44.3 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | - | 6.21 % (avg) | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. SG&A and R&D as a share of revenue have limited coverage as this data is backfilled and appear only where reported. Higher capital intensity is not inherently negative; it reflects the industry's asset requirements.
Kla's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Scientific & Technical Instruments industry average (36 companies, excluding loss-making/negative-equity outliers), alongside returns on capital for context on whether a premium or discount lines up with measurably stronger or weaker returns. See the full Scientific & Technical Instruments industry valuation benchmarks.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | 9.8x | 60.0x | -50.2x |
| EV / EBITDA | 37.1x | 24.4x | +12.6x |
| P/B | 43.9x | 4.7x | +39.2x |
| Return on Equity | 89.90 % | industry aggregate | 21.47 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | - | -0.95 % (avg) | - |
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. A valuation premium or discount is not, by itself, a judgment of over- or under-valuation. Compare it against the return and growth context shown elsewhere on this page.
Kla's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in company reports.| Metric | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 13.34 % | 22.63 % | 15.05 % | 34.46 % | 28.39 % | -7.75 % | 12.15 % | 17.49 % |
| Operating Margin | 39.18 % | 26.24 % | 28.42 % | 38.90 % | 39.86 % | 34.30 % | 31.05 % | 39.75 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | 28.81 % | 13.63 % | 16.76 % | 26.27 % | 33.54 % | 24.79 % | 23.42 % | 30.18 % |
| P/E | 9.3x | 22.4x | 29.8x | 21.1x | 15.8x | 2.6x | 2.8x | 3.4x |
Source: CSIMarket API, fiscal-year figures. P/E is this company's own historical ratio at each fiscal year end and can swing sharply around an earnings trough: that is real, not a data error.
Kla's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
See Methodology: BCG Growth-Share Matrix for how relative share and growth are calculated and thresholded.
Kla falls in the Dog quadrant: relative market share of 0.71x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 8.3% (median, trailing 12 months).
Source: CSIMarket API (market-cap share and industry revenue growth). The 10% growth and 1.0x share lines are standard textbook thresholds, not derived from this industry's own distribution. A caveat worth reading alongside this chart: Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc alone holds 46% of this industry's market cap. In an industry this dominated by one leader, the framework will place nearly every OTHER company in "Dog" or "Question Mark" purely because relative share is measured against that leader, regardless of how strong those other companies actually are on their own fundamentals. Check the Profitability, Valuation and Financial Strength sections above before treating this quadrant label as a verdict.
Kla's Competitive Forces (Porter's Five Forces)
Only the forces this data can support honestly are shown; the other three are marked as such rather than guessed.| Force | Assessment | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive Rivalry | Low | Industry HHI of 3,267 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
Note: see Methodology: Porter's Five Forces. Supplier power and buyer power are covered on Kla's dedicated Suppliers and Customers pages, not here.
Kla's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
See Methodology: GE/McKinsey Matrix for how the two axes are built.
Kla falls in the Medium attractiveness / High strength cell: Invest / Grow.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Each axis score is a simple 1(low)/2(medium)/3(high) average across its three inputs -- a transparent, disclosed simplification, not a validated academic scoring model.
Kla's SWOT
Every point below is a fixed rule applied to a metric already shown elsewhere on this page (Market Structure, Profitability, Valuation, Run-Rate, Stock Performance, Quality Breadth) not an independent strategic assessment. A blank quadrant means no rule was met, not that none apply.Strengths
- Return on equity 21.5 points above the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is accelerating (+14.1% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Outperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
Weaknesses
No rule matched.
Opportunities
No rule matched.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc , holding 45.82 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: see Methodology: SWOT Analysis.
Kla's Financial Strength vs Peers Comparison
Quick ratio, working capital, debt to equity and asset turnover, trailing 12 months| Company | Quick Ratio | Working Capital | Debt / Equity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | 0.42 | 2.82 | 1.00 |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | 1.82 | 2.51 | 0.02 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 0.53 | 1.26 | 0.19 |
| Applied Materials Inc | 0.79 | 2.53 | 0.29 |
| Lam Research Corporation | 0.96 | 2.46 | 0.34 |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | 0.37 | 1.26 | 0.11 |
Quick ratio = cash / current liabilities; working capital ratio = current assets / current liabilities; asset turnover = revenue / total assets. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kla's Revenue and Income Growth vs Peers
Quarterly revenue and net income growth, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Revenue Y/Y | Income Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | Q3 2026 | +28.9 % | +38.1 % |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | Q4 2025 | +37.6 % | +53.1 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Q4 2025 | +20.7 % | +32.6 % |
| Applied Materials Inc | Q2 2026 | +24.8 % | +42.7 % |
| Lam Research Corporation | Q3 2026 | +54.4 % | +75.5 % |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +13.3 % | +27.3 % |
| PEERS TOTAL | +22.9 % | +52.0 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Kla's Peers' Costs of Sales and Capital Expenditures
Context for revenue growth: peer costs and capex, year over year and quarter over quarter| Company | Period | Costs Y/Y | Capex Y/Y |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | Q3 2026 | +26.9 % | +103.1 % |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | Q4 2025 | +25.7 % | +39.1 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Q4 2025 | +16.9 % | -18.2 % |
| Applied Materials Inc | Q2 2026 | +21.1 % | +21.1 % |
| Lam Research Corporation | Q3 2026 | +48.5 % | +39.2 % |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | Q4 2025 | +11.4 % | +129.4 % |
Kla's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | 30.35% | 39.27% | 89.90% |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | 21.37% | 26.29% | 31.41% |
| Asml Holding Nv | 18.31% | 35.02% | 47.20% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 23.70% | 28.79% | 41.02% |
| Lam Research Corporation | 36.73% | 48.95% | 72.18% |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | 4.63% | 6.38% | 11.18% |
ROA = net income / total assets; ROI = net income / investments; ROE = net income / equity; turnover ratios use trailing 12 month revenue (receivables) and cost of sales (inventory).
Kla's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Kla Corporation | 6.92 | 12.52 |
| Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited | 70.18 | 16.04 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 57.66 | 15.01 |
| Applied Materials Inc | 28.76 | 8.63 |
| Lam Research Corporation | 29.87 | 9.63 |
| Ase Technology Holding Co Ltd | 3.61 | 6.81 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 38.44 | 7.08 |
P/E = price / diluted EPS (trailing 12 months); PEG = P/E divided by EPS growth; the average row divides the peers' combined market cap by their combined income, sales, cash flow and equity.