Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: LDOS stock price vs MU: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at MU's multiple
Needs MU P/E.
Implied fair value · at LDOS's multiple
Needs LDOS P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Ten period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
Micron Technology, Inc. · implied price per share
Bear
-$0.34
Base
$0.37
Bull
$1.30
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP
LDOS vs IBM
Accenture plc
LDOS vs ACN
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP
LDOS vs LMT
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP /DE/
LDOS vs NOC
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
LDOS vs GD
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORP
LDOS vs ZBRA
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP
LDOS vs WDC
Seagate Technology Holdings plc
LDOS vs STX
INTEL CORP
LDOS vs INTC
NVIDIA CORP
LDOS vs NVDA
Broadcom Inc.
LDOS vs AVGO
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC
LDOS vs TXN
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe LDOS should be valued as a stable, lower-growth government services company rather than on MU-style growth multiples, then avoid relying on MU-implied upside and anchor valuation closer to LDOS’s historical band and DCF range because the provided data show MU is a fundamentally different, higher-growth, higher-margin business.
LDOS trades at 10.4x P/E versus MU at 108.4x, and 0.8x P/S versus 24.9x, so the apparent valuation gap is enormous. However, MU’s much higher growth and profitability profiles explain a large part of the premium, making the 945.0% implied upside from a straight P/E comparison unreliable.
Supporting Metrics
