Peraso Inc's Competitiveness
A competitive positioning analysis and financial ratio benchmarking of Peraso Inc (PRSO) 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: Peraso Inc vs Its Competitors
- TTM: Trailing 12-month revenue of 8M vs 203,381M combined for tracked competitors (0.0% combined share).
- Trending: Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-37.6% annualized vs trailing 12 months), vs accelerating (+39.3%) for its tracked peer group.
- Growth: Peraso Inc generated -37.0% revenue growth year over year in Q2 2026, vs 101.6% for its tracked competitors combined.
- Profitability: Its -169.9% net margin compares with 27.7% for the peer group.
- Scale: Peraso Inc ranks #106 of 117 companies by market capitalization in the Semiconductors industry, holding 0.0% of industry market cap.
- Peer revenue share: Peraso Inc accounted for 0.0% of combined revenue among its tracked peer group, down from 0.0% a year earlier.
- Peer differentiation: Revenue per employee of $0.20M compares with $0.88M for the peer group (0.2x).
Every figure above is sourced and cited in detail further down this page (Market Structure, Profitability & Cost Structure, Productivity vs Peers).
PRSO Sales vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Peraso Inc reported revenue contraction of 36.95 % year on year in Q2 2026, below its competitors' combined revenue growth of 101.61 %.
With a net margin of -169.85 %, Peraso Inc reported lower profitability than its competitors (27.66 %).
Peraso Inc generated 0.00 % of the combined sales of its peer group, down from 0.01 % a year earlier.
Peraso Inc vs. its Competitors, Q2 2026
Revenue 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 an SEC filing; 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 Peraso Inc and its 4 competitor groupings. Available under Commercial License.
| Entity | TTM Revenue | Rev Run-rate vs TTM |
|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Competitors combined | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar-Size Competitors (6) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
| Similar Growth & Profitability (3) | $12,345M | +12.3% · Accelerating |
TTM revenue, run-rate and net margin benchmarking across Peraso Inc's competitor groups requires a Commercial License.
For context: the Semiconductors industry grew revenue 10.5% year over year, combined, vs -37.0% for Peraso Inc. Peraso Inc's share of combined industry revenue moved from 0.00% to 0.00%, a gain of 0.00 percentage points.
Peraso Inc's Competitor Quality Breadth
Share of each group, trailing 12 months: profitable (net margin > 0), expanding (revenue growth > 0), growing faster than the industry's own median, and financially distressed (Piotroski F-Score of 2 or below).
| Entity | Profitable | Expanding | Above Industry Growth | Distressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | No | No | No | No |
| Competitors combined (18) | ||||
| High-Confidence Competitors (1) | - | - | - | |
| Similar-Size Competitors (8) | ||||
| Similar Growth & Profitability (8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 12.50 % (1 of 8) | 0.00 % (0 of 8) | 37.50 % (3 of 8) |
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.
PRSO Stock Performance relative to its Competitors
PRSO Stock Performance relative to High-Confidence Competitors
PRSO Stock Performance relative to Similar-Size Competitors
PRSO Stock Performance relative to Similar Growth & Profitability Competitors
5 Best-Performing Tracked Competitors, Trailing 12 Months
| # | Competitor | TTM Share Price Return | vs U.S.A. 500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Netlist Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 2 | Micron Technology Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 3 | Maxlinear Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 4 | Intel Corporation | 282.9% | Outperformed |
| 5 | Macom Technology Solutions Holdings Inc | 282.9% | Outperformed |
TTM share price return and U.S.A. 500 outperformance for Peraso Inc's best-performing tracked competitors requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months.
Peraso Inc's Comment on Competition and Industry Peers
mmWave circuit and system design is a highly specialized engineering skill, as well as a challenging technology to ship in mass production. At frequencies above 24 GHz, circuits are extremely vulnerable to small variances in the semiconductor manufacturing process. Designing circuits that minimize susceptibility to these variances takes years of practice, and we believe we are one of the few companies in the world that is skilled in mmWave design. Further, we have shipped mmWave devices in volume, and ensuring all devices sold adhere to strict performance standards is a core competency we have developed. In addition, we have developed our own mmWave phased array antenna technology, which allows us to be highly competitive in terms of overall system cost. Our customers do not need to engage with third-party antenna suppliers, thus eliminating the additional cost for a third-party antenna.
IEEE 802.11ad/ay Market:
Our primary competitor in the IEEE802.11ad/ay market is Qualcomm. The primary benefit that we provide to the market is the support of the higher frequency bands from 66 GHz to 71 GHz. The advantage at these frequencies is that oxygen attenuation is significantly reduced, and signals can travel much further.
We also have key points of differentiation compared to Qualcomm for wireless video devices. We are well positioned in this market, as we have USB 3.0 built into our devices, so our products generally support USB architectures. A prime example is the replacement of the USB cable with a wireless version using our technology. There are many applications where this can be of use, including USB web cams, wireless displays, and AR/VR headsets. We have invested significant software resources into providing the market with wireless USB solutions, and we believe there is no other mmWave vendor in the world that can offer multi-gigabit solutions as a replacement for wired USB.
5G Market:
With 5G, our efforts are focused on the mmWave RF front-end phased array component of the system. This focus is in contrast to the IEEE solution, in which Peraso provides a baseband device as well as an mmWave RF front-end phased array device. The 5G product instantiation is an RF module that embraces a broad swath of intellectual property that establishes a substantial moat to potential competitors. Key elements of our mmWave intellectual property include:
RF circuits;
phased array antenna; and
in-system circuit calibration, beam forming, real-time system monitoring.
From a competitive perspective, we are currently the only pure-play, 5G vendor to offer a dual-band (28/39GHz) RF solution for the FWA market. Qualcomm does offer a 5G RF solution for the FWA market, however its solution is based on aggregating its mobile RF solution, which requires several compromises in terms of cost, performance, and power consumption. With an initial focus on fixed wireless access, we can derive advantages by optimizing our silicon for that specific market. Furthermore, we have experienced initial success in the unlicensed, 60 GHz, FWA market, and we believe we will be able to transfer all of our knowledge gained from the 60 GHz market to the 5G market. However, this market opportunity is more competitive, and potential competitors, in addition to Qualcomm, include Mediatek and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., or Samsung.
Memory
The markets for our memory products are highly competitive. We believe that the principal competitive factors are:
processing speed and performance;
density and cost;
power consumption;
reliability;
interface requirements;
ease with which technology can be customized for and incorporated into customers? products; and
level of technical support provided.
We believe that our products compete favorably with respect to each of these criteria. Our proprietary 1T-SRAM embedded memory and high-speed serial interface IP can provide our Accelerator Engine ICs with a competitive advantage over alternative devices. Alternative solutions are either DRAM or SRAM-based and can support either the memory size or speed requirements of high-performance networking systems, but generally not both. DRAM solutions provide a significant amount of memory at competitive cost, but DRAM solutions do not have the required fast access and cycle times to enable high-performance. The DRAM solutions currently used in networking systems include RLDRAM from Micron Technology, Inc., or Micron, LLDRAM from Renesas, DDR from Samsung, Micron and others, and HBM, which is stacked DRAM memory from Samsung and SK Hynix. SRAM solutions can meet high-speed performance requirements, but often lack adequate memory size. The SRAM solutions currently used in networking systems primarily include QDR or similar SRAM products from Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and GSI Technology, Inc. Most of the currently available SRAM and DRAM solutions use a parallel, rather than a serial interface. To offset these drawbacks, system designers generally must use more discrete memory ICs, resulting in higher power consumption and greater utilization of space on the line card.
Publicly Traded Peers of Peraso Inc
Revenue and income for trailing 12 months, in millions of $, except employees| Company | Market Cap | Revenues |
|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | 6.95 | 8.37 |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1,206,807.10 | 90,274.00 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 688,901.35 | 36,586.96 |
| Intel Corporation | 592,217.12 | 57,032.00 |
| Qualcomm Inc | 200,416.12 | 44,069.00 |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | 42,922.49 | 5,123.10 |
| SUBTOTAL | 2,808,313.45 | 241,409.99 |
Sign in to see all competitors of Peraso Inc.
Sources: Peraso Inc's official press releases and regulatory filings; CSIMarket.com's market research; and the financial filings and press releases of the other companies cited.
Updated on:
Focus of this report: publicly traded companies. Ten additional tables on Peraso Inc versus competitors, including market share analysis, are in the navigation menu under Competition. To download the tables, please subscribe.
Peraso Inc's Competitors Named by the Company
Competitive relationships identified from SEC filings and corroborating sources, each with a basis and confidence.| Competitor | Basis | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| MediaTek Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
| Samsung Electronics Co | Named by the company | 85% |
| Qualcomm Inc | Named by the company | 85% |
Filing basis, confidence, active dates and source counts for Peraso Inc's named competitors require a Commercial License.
Methodology: relationships are extracted from SEC filings (named-competitor disclosures) and corroborating sources. Named by the company = explicitly disclosed as a competitor; Inferred = derived from corroborating signals. Confidence reflects evidence strength.
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | All Other Segments 100.00 % |
| Micron Technology Inc | CMBU 33.21 % |
| Intel Corporation | Client Computing Group 56.91 % |
| Qualcomm Inc | QCT 85.49 % |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | Semiconductor products 96.52 % |
| Macom Technology Solutions Holdings Inc | Reportable 100.00 % |
Source: operating segment revenue as reported in each company's SEC filings (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).
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | 7 | 199,381 | -170,714 |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1,206,807 | 1,703,283 | 952,245 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 688,901 | 827,591 | 243,447 |
| Intel Corporation | 592,217 | 670,176 | -133,690 |
| Qualcomm Inc | 200,416 | 847,481 | 178,058 |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | 42,922 | 229,735 | 21,453 |
| PEERS TOTAL | 2,808,306 | 878,607 | 213,828 |
Peraso Inc's Geographic Revenue Exposure vs Peers
Revenue by country/region as reported in each company's most recent filing. Disclosure granularity varies by filer (some report by country, others by broad region) and is shown as disclosed.| Company | Largest Market |
|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | Rest of World 35.83 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Rest of Europe and Middle East 1.43 % |
| Macom Technology Solutions Holdings Inc | United States 39.45 % |
| Lattice Semiconductor Corp | CN 66.78 % |
| Skyworks Solutions Inc | United States 75.41 % |
| Rambus Inc | KR 45.97 % |
Source: revenue geography as reported in each company's SEC filings (10-K/10-Q), via the CSIMarket API. Percentages are of that company's own total consolidated revenue for its most recent reported period.
Peraso Inc's Position in Industry Market Structure
Market-capitalization share and concentration across all 109 companies in Peraso Inc's industry classification, broader than the peer set above. Market cap in millions of $.Peraso Inc ranks #106 of 109 companies by market capitalization in its industry, holding 0.00 % of total industry market cap. The industry's Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 2,389, indicating a moderately concentrated market structure (U.S. antitrust guidance: below 1,500 unconcentrated, 1,500 to 2,500 moderately concentrated, above 2,500 highly concentrated).
| Rank | Company | Market Cap | Industry Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nvidia Corp | 5,648,317 | 44.54 % |
| 2 | Broadcom Inc | 1,783,853 | 14.07 % |
| 3 | Micron Technology Inc | 1,220,833 | 9.63 % |
| 4 | Advanced Micro Devices Inc | 1,024,665 | 8.08 % |
| 5 | Intel Corporation | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 6 | Applied Materials Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 7 | Arm Holdings Plc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 8 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 9 | Marvell Technology Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 10 | Analog Devices Inc | 1,234 | 5.2% |
| 106 | Peraso Inc | 7 | 0.00 % |
Market cap and industry share for the rest of Peraso Inc's industry peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation) across CSIMarket's industry classification, market capitalization as of 2026-09-28.
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | Beam Global | 26 | -55.66 % |
| 102 | Sequans Communications S a | 24 | -69.50 % |
| 103 | Key Tronic Corporation | 24 | -36.27 % |
| 104 | Semileds Corp | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 105 | Mobix Labs Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 106 | Peraso Inc | 7 | -58.48 % |
| 107 | Sono Group N v | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 108 | Smartkem Inc | 1,234 | 12.3% |
| 109 | Metalink Ltd | 1,234 | 12.3% |
Market cap, return, momentum, beta and Sharpe ratio for the rest of Peraso Inc's same-size peers requires a Commercial License.
Source: CSIMarket API (daily market-structure computation); returns and risk metrics as of 2026-09-28. Beta and Sharpe ratio are versus the broad U.S. equity market, not this industry.
Peraso Inc's Profitability & Cost Structure
Trailing 12-month margins from SEC-filed financials. Operating margin is compared to the Semiconductors industry median; gross margin, EBITDA margin and capital intensity are compared to the live industry average (151 companies).| Metric | Company | Industry | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Margin | 56.59 % | 34.40 % (avg) | +22.2 pp |
| Operating Margin | -85.85 % | industry median | -88.7 pp |
| EBITDA Margin | 2.78 % | 7.07 % (avg) | -4.3 pp |
| Capital Intensity (Capex / Revenue) | 4.08 % | 9.39 % (avg) | -5.3 pp |
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.
Peraso Inc's Valuation vs Competitive Position
Valuation multiples vs the Semiconductors industry average (151 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.| Metric | Company | Industry Average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| P/E | - | 43.3x | - |
| EV / EBITDA | 47.7x | 22.7x | +25.0x |
| P/B | 2.9x | 6.6x | -3.7x |
| Return on Equity | -161.43 % | industry aggregate | -208.26 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -77.15 % | -0.16 % (avg) | -76.99 % |
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.
Peraso Inc's Multi-Year Financial Trajectory
Fiscal-year revenue growth, operating margin, return on invested capital and P/E, as reported in SEC filings.| Metric | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | 46.78 % | 112.00 % | -46.19 % | -32.63 % | -16.42 % | 161.81 % | 16.18 % | -18.41 % |
| Operating Margin | -113.47 % | -46.78 % | -24.42 % | -52.26 % | -283.11 % | -217.33 % | -85.56 % | -40.15 % |
| Return on Invested Capital | -42.54 % | -38.62 % | -16.23 % | -32.83 % | -32.46 % | -56.98 % | -150.35 % | -60.67 % |
| P/E | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
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.
Peraso Inc's Strategic Group Map
Every company in Peraso Inc's industry and named-competitor list, plotted by trailing 12-month revenue growth and operating margin. Peraso Inc is shown in red; its closest peers by combined growth, margin and ROIC (the Similar Growth & Profitability group above) are labeled.
Source: CSIMarket API, trailing 12 months. Extreme outlier values (from near-zero-revenue companies) are excluded from the plotted cloud but never from the highlighted company or its labeled peers.
Peraso Inc's BCG Growth-Share Matrix
Relative market share (vs Peraso Inc's largest competitor by market cap) against industry revenue growth, using the standard textbook thresholds (1.0x share, 10% growth) a common framework, not a precision instrument.
Peraso Inc falls in the Question Mark quadrant: relative market share of 0.00x vs its largest competitor, in an industry growing revenue 10.3% (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: Nvidia Corp alone holds 45% 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.
Peraso Inc'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 | Moderate | Industry HHI of 2,389 (see Industry Market Structure & Concentration above) |
| Barriers to Entry | Lower than typical for the industry | Capital intensity (capex / revenue) of 4.08 % vs industry average 9.39 % (see Profitability & Cost Structure above) |
| Supplier Power | Not covered on this page | See Peraso Inc's dedicated suppliers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Buyer Power | Not covered on this page | See Peraso Inc's dedicated customers page for concentration and dependency data |
| Threat of Substitutes | - | No systematic data source for cross-product substitution exists in this system; not estimated |
Note: this is a partial, data-grounded application of the framework, not a complete strategic assessment. Rivalry and barriers-to-entry readings are mechanical translations of the HHI and capital-intensity figures shown elsewhere on this page, not independent judgments.
Peraso Inc's Industry Attractiveness & Competitive Strength
A CSIMarket composite, not a standard field: each axis is an equal-weighted average of three factors already shown elsewhere on this page (industry growth, industry profitability and rivalry for attractiveness; relative market share, profitability and growth vs industry for strength). Disclosed as a designed methodology, not a precision measurement.
Peraso Inc falls in the Medium attractiveness / Low strength cell: Harvest.
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.
Peraso Inc'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
No rule matched.
Weaknesses
- Operating margin 88.7 points below the industry median.
- Return on equity 208.3 points below the industry aggregate.
- Latest-quarter revenue run-rate is decelerating (-37.6% annualized vs trailing 12 months).
- Underperforming the U.S.A. 500 over the trailing 12 months.
- Low relative market share vs the industry leader (0.00x).
Opportunities
- Industry revenue growing at a healthy 10.3% median pace.
Threats
- Industry dominated by Nvidia Corp, holding 44.54 % of industry market cap.
Methodology: mechanical, rule-based SWOT. Each bullet reuses a figure already sourced and cited elsewhere on this page; nothing here is generated narrative or independent analyst judgment.
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | 0.40 | 3.08 | - |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1.02 | 2.91 | 0.17 |
| Asml Holding Nv | - | 1.26 | 0.22 |
| Intel Corporation | 0.44 | 1.86 | 0.40 |
| Qualcomm Inc | 0.53 | 2.47 | 0.62 |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | 0.33 | 2.20 | 0.82 |
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.
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | Q2 2026 | -37.0 % | - |
| Micron Technology Inc | Q2 2026 | +345.7 % | +1,398.3 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Q4 2025 | +15.6 % | +26.9 % |
| Intel Corporation | Q2 2026 | +25.4 % | - |
| Qualcomm Inc | Q2 2026 | -4.0 % | -24.9 % |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | Q2 2026 | +38.2 % | - |
| PEERS TOTAL | +60.5 % | +207.1 % |
Growth is shown only where both periods are positive. Peers in the Blank Checks industry are excluded.
Peraso Inc'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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | Q2 2026 | -52.6 % | +115.6 % |
| Micron Technology Inc | Q2 2026 | +10.5 % | +166.4 % |
| Asml Holding Nv | Q4 2025 | +11.9 % | -21.7 % |
| Intel Corporation | Q2 2026 | +3.2 % | -28.0 % |
| Qualcomm Inc | Q2 2026 | +1.4 % | +68.7 % |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | Q2 2026 | +9.6 % | +24.9 % |
Peraso Inc's Returns and Turnover vs Peers
ROA, ROI and ROE (trailing 12 months), receivables and inventory turnover| Company | ROA | ROI | ROE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | - | - | - |
| Micron Technology Inc | 49.92% | 56.57% | 70.55% |
| Asml Holding Nv | 19.00% | 36.53% | 49.00% |
| Intel Corporation | - | - | - |
| Qualcomm Inc | 17.24% | 21.12% | 38.04% |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | 3.26% | 3.70% | 7.18% |
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).
Peraso Inc's Valuation vs Peers
P/E, price to sales, PEG, price to cash flow and price to book| Company | P/E | Price / Sales |
|---|---|---|
| Peraso Inc | - | 0.83 |
| Micron Technology Inc | 23.85 | 13.37 |
| Asml Holding Nv | 71.69 | 18.83 |
| Intel Corporation | - | 10.38 |
| Qualcomm Inc | 21.52 | 4.55 |
| Microchip Technology Incorporated | 136.79 | 8.38 |
| PEERS AVERAGE | 47.81 | 11.63 |
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.
