Compare the evidence
ASM vs Tokyo Electron vs Lam Research
Compare ALD, deposition and etch equipment portfolios. Process capability, installed tools and customer-qualified wafer output are separate stages; company sales are not directly comparable HBM exposure.
Read horizontally within each row. Product ratings, planned capacity, completed deliveries and current financials describe different stages.
On narrow screens, scroll the comparison horizontally. Each figure keeps its period, accounting definition and source. GAAP cash flow, adjusted margins, segment gross profit and EBITDA are not interchangeable.
| Research dimension | ASM InternationalASM · Checked 2026-10-21 | Tokyo Electron8035 · Checked 2026-10-21 | Lam ResearchLRCX · Checked 2026-10-21 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial role | Atomic layer deposition equipment | Deposition, coating/developing, etch and cleaning equipment | Semiconductor fabrication equipment |
| Constraint to test | Conformal ultrathin films, precursor integration and customer process qualification | Integrated process performance and repeatable wafer yield | Qualified etch and deposition processes at customer fabs |
| Reported evidence and sources | ASM describes thermal and plasma-enhanced ALD platforms for logic, memory and advanced device fabrication.
| Tokyo Electron lists deposition technologies including ALD, CVD and PVD alongside other wafer-processing equipment.
| Lam reports June-quarter 2026 revenue of $6,722,238 thousand.
|
| Capacity and delivery |
|
|
|
| Reported economics | Not quantified in this profile. | Not quantified in this profile. | Not quantified in this profile. |
| Evidence coverage | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Constraint-specific revenue, pricing power and valuation remain unquantified; product relevance is not proof of pure-play exposure. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Constraint-specific revenue, pricing power and valuation remain unquantified; product relevance is not proof of pure-play exposure. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. | Public product or operations profile. Quantitative economic exposure has not been reviewed here. Consolidated revenue is broader than this constraint; pure-play exposure and valuation remain unquantified. No quantified share of revenue attributable to the specific constraint. No evidence-strength score is assigned. |
| Counter-evidence | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. | No separately sourced counter-evidence review is included in this baseline. The conditions below are research tests. |
| Next to monitor |
|
|
|
| What would weaken the case? |
|
|
|
Open in Excel or another spreadsheet. Each entry preserves its source, date and accounting definition; research interpretations are labeled.
How to use this comparison
Start with the constraint, inspect the dated sources, then follow the company to monitor new evidence. A documented industrial role does not establish a shortage or an attractive share price.
This comparison uses open company research checked on the dates shown. Valuation and expected returns require a separate review.