ASML vs Applied Materials (ASML vs AMAT) 2026: Stock Returns, Risk & Volatility

Q: Which is a better investment: ASML or AMAT?

Over the past year, AMAT looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (AMAT +168.6% vs ASML +110.9%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (AMAT 2.38 vs ASML 2.04). On risk, ASML was less volatile (ASML 38.6% vs AMAT 44.6%), ASML had a smaller max drawdown (ASML -17.9% vs AMAT -21.4%), and ASML had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of ASML -4.97% vs AMAT -6.56%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: ASML or AMAT?

Over the past year, AMAT outperformed ASML. AMAT returned +168.6% compared with ASML’s +110.9%. AMAT had the better risk-adjusted return, with a Sharpe ratio of 2.38 versus ASML’s 2.04. ASML was less volatile than AMAT, and ASML had a smaller max drawdown than AMAT.

Total Return

ASML +110.9%

AMAT +168.6%

Sharpe Ratio

ASML 2.04

AMAT 2.38

Annualized Volatility

ASML 38.6%

AMAT 44.6%

Max Drawdown

ASML -17.9%

AMAT -21.4%

Metric winners: Total Return: AMAT; Sharpe Ratio: AMAT; Annualized Volatility: ASML (less volatile); Max Drawdown: ASML (smaller drawdown).

ASML Total Return

↑ +110.9%

AMAT Total Return

↑ +168.6%

Relative Performance of ASML vs AMAT (Normalized to 100)

ASML AMAT

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Trade ASML or AMAT

Access these assets on trusted platforms.

Hyperliquid

Trade perpetual futures exposure where supportedASMLAMATTrade on Hyperliquid

Binance

Trade futures exposure on a global exchange where supportedASMLAMATTrade on Binance

Affiliate disclosure

Key Takeaways

Total Return: ASML delivered a +110.9% total return, while AMAT returned +168.6% over the same period. AMAT outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): AMAT had a higher Sharpe (2.38 vs 2.04), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
Volatility (Annualized): AMAT was more volatile, with 44.6% annualized volatility, versus 38.6% for ASML.
Maximum Drawdown: ASML's maximum drawdown was -17.9%, while AMAT experienced a deeper drawdown of -21.4%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), ASML's VaR was -3.80% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -4.97%; AMAT's were -4.26% and -6.56%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: ASML 0.06 vs AMAT -0.72. Excess kurtosis: ASML 1.28 vs AMAT 3.80. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): ASML 7/9, AMAT 9/6. Worst day: ASML -8.33% (2025-07-16) vs AMAT -14.07% (2025-08-15). Best day: ASML +8.78% (2026-01-02) vs AMAT +8.87% (2026-04-08).
Risk ratios: Sortino - ASML: 3.27 vs. AMAT: 3.60 , Calmar - ASML: 6.27 vs. AMAT: 7.97 , Sterling - ASML: 8.26 vs. AMAT: 10.64 , Treynor - ASML: 0.42 vs. AMAT: 0.51 , Ulcer Index - ASML: 6.51% vs. AMAT: 7.59%

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on April 25, 2025:

ASML $21,089.99 +110.9%

AMAT $26,861.22 +168.6%

Difference: $5,771.23 (AMAT ahead)

ASML vs Applied Materials Performance Over Time

Metric	ASML	AMAT
30 Days	1.3%	8%
90 Days	2.1%	25.3%
180 Days	37.5%	76.9%
1 Year	110.9%	168.6%

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

ASML vs Applied Materials Correlation

Average Correlation

strongly correlated

0.77

Current (30-day) 0.80

30-day rolling range +0.51 to +0.91

ASML and Applied Materials are strongly correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.77, these assets tend to move together, limiting diversification benefits.

For portfolio construction, this strong correlation means holding both ASML and AMAT provides limited risk reduction — they're likely to decline together in downturns.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.80
Average (full period)	0.77
Minimum (30-day rolling)	0.51
Maximum (30-day rolling)	0.91

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement. Current, minimum, and maximum figures are 30-day rolling correlations on shared daily returns.

Drawdown

Maximum Drawdown

ASML

-17.9%

AMAT

-21.4%

ASML experienced its maximum drawdown of -17.9% from 2026-02-25 to 2026-03-30. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Applied Materials experienced its maximum drawdown of -21.4% from 2025-07-15 to 2025-09-03. It took 19 days to recover.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

ASML vs Applied Materials Volatility (ASML vs AMAT)

ASML Volatility

38.6%

±2.43% 1-day vol

AMAT Volatility

44.6%

±2.81% 1-day vol

1-day volatility (1σ)

ASML

±2.43%

AMAT

±2.81%

ASML's 38.6% annualized volatility translates to about ±2.43% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Applied Materials's 44.6% annualized volatility translates to about ±2.81% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

AMAT had the wider volatility profile over this window. That means its day-to-day return distribution was broader; ASML was calmer, but lower volatility does not by itself mean better returns.

Treat the ± daily figure as a one-standard-deviation estimate from historical returns, not a forecast or expected absolute daily move. For context, 15-18% annualized volatility is roughly ±1% one-standard-deviation daily volatility.

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sharpe Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Return per total volatility

Sharpe gives us excess return per unit of risk. Upside and downside volatility both count as risk.

Higher is better

excess return / total volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sharpe} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_R}

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. AMAT had a higher Sharpe (2.38 vs 2.04), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sortino Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Return per downside volatility

Sortino keeps the return-over-risk idea, but only returns below the target rate count as volatility.

Higher is better

excess return / downside volatility

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sortino} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\sigma_{\mathrm{down}}}

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). AMAT had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: ASML 24.1% vs AMAT 29.5%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Calmar Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

CAGR per worst drawdown

Calmar compares CAGR against the single deepest peak-to-trough loss over the period.

Higher is better

CAGR / max drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Calmar} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR}}{|\mathrm{MaxDD}|}

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. AMAT posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sterling Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Return per average drawdown

Sterling smooths the drawdown penalty by using average drawdown events instead of only the worst one.

Higher is better

excess annual return / average deep drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Sterling} = \frac{\mathrm{CAGR} - R_f}{\overline{D}_{>10\%}}

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). AMAT posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Treynor Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Excess return per market beta

Treynor divides excess annualized return by beta — the sensitivity of the asset to broad-market moves. The slope shown is each asset’s beta vs SPY.

Higher is better

excess return / market beta

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{Treynor} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[R] - R_f}{\beta}

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. AMAT posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of ASML and AMAT

Ulcer Index: ASML vs. AMAT

Drawdown pain

Ulcer Index is a risk index, not a return-over-risk ratio. Lower means smaller and shorter drawdowns.

Lower is better

root-mean-square drawdown

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{UI} = \sqrt{\mathbb{E}[D_t^2]}

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. ASML had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): ASML vs. Applied Materials

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: ASML vs. AMAT (1-Year)

Actual daily return tails

The bars are real daily log-return observations from the article window. Darker bars are observations at or beyond each asset’s 5% VaR cutoff.

Observed returns

VaR marks the 5th percentile loss cutoff; Expected Shortfall averages the observations beyond that cutoff.

Formula

\displaystyle \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}=Q_{0.05}(r_t),\quad \mathrm{ES}_{5\%}=\mathbb{E}[r_t\mid r_t\le \mathrm{VaR}_{5\%}]

Metric (1-Year)	ASML	AMAT
5% VaR (daily log return)	-3.80%	-4.26%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-4.97% (worst 13 days)	-6.56% (worst 13 days)
Skew	0.06	-0.72
Excess kurtosis	1.28	3.80
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 9	9 / 6
Worst day	-8.33% (2025-07-16)	-14.07% (2025-08-15)
Best day	+8.78% (2026-01-02)	+8.87% (2026-04-08)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=249). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

Downside co-move map: ASML vs. AMAT (2σ)

Shared-close daily returns

Dots mark actual downside days: asset-colored dots are one-sided downside moves, and red dots are joint downside days. Grey dots add sampled shared-return context when available. The shaded lower-left zone shows where both ASML and AMAT crossed their own 2σ downside threshold.

2σ

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both ASML and AMAT had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	ASML	AMAT
2025-11-20	-5.61%	-6.14%
2026-03-06	-5.52%	-6.29%
2026-03-26	-4.62%	-8.34%

Days when ASML had a big down day

Date (interval)	ASML	AMAT
2025-07-16	-8.33%	-2.25%
2025-10-10	-4.52%	-4.70%
2025-11-20	-5.61%	-6.14%
2025-12-17	-5.63%	-4.08%
2026-03-06	-5.52%	-6.29%
2026-03-26	-4.62%	-8.34%
2026-04-16	-4.79%	-1.11%

Days when AMAT had a big down day

Date (interval)	ASML	AMAT
2025-05-16	-1.35%	-5.25%
2025-08-15	-1.73%	-14.07%
2025-10-07	-3.93%	-5.52%
2025-11-20	-5.61%	-6.14%
2026-01-30	-2.21%	-5.57%
2026-02-04	-4.07%	-6.61%
2026-03-03	-4.40%	-5.60%
2026-03-06	-5.52%	-6.29%
2026-03-26	-4.62%	-8.34%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Full Comparison of ASML vs. Applied Materials (1-Year)

Metric	ASML	AMAT
Total Return	+110.9%	+168.6%
Annualized Volatility	38.6%	44.6%
Sharpe Ratio	2.04	2.38
Sortino Ratio	3.27	3.60
Calmar Ratio	6.27	7.97
Sterling Ratio	8.26	10.64
Treynor Ratio	0.42	0.51
Ulcer Index	6.51%	7.59%
Max Drawdown	-17.9%	-21.4%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.56	0.56
5% VaR (daily log return)	-3.80%	-4.26%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-4.97%	-6.56%
Skew	0.06	-0.72
Excess kurtosis	1.28	3.80
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 9	9 / 6

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 220 rolling 30-day values (from 249 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): ASML: 252 days/year; AMAT: 252 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

ASML: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.

AMAT: 4.17% over 2025-04-25 → 2026-04-23.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

ASML: ≈ -7.4%/yr

AMAT: ≈ -9.9%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

ASML vs Applied Materials: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: ASML or AMAT?

AMAT showed higher volatility at 44.6% annualized, compared to 38.6% for ASML Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does ASML provide diversification when held with AMAT?

ASML and AMAT are strongly correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.77. This strong correlation limits diversification benefits.

How bad are the worst 5% days for ASML vs AMAT?

Over the past year, ASML's 5% VaR was -3.80% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -4.97% (worst 13 days). AMAT's were -4.26% and -6.56% (worst 13 days).

Do ASML and AMAT crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=249), when AMAT has a 2σ down day, ASML also does 33.3% (3/9 days). In the other direction, when ASML has one, AMAT also does 42.9% (3/7 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: ASML or AMAT?

AMAT showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 2.38 versus ASML's 2.04 Over the past year.

Can ASML and AMAT be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their strong correlation provides limited risk reduction since they tend to move together. AMAT's higher volatility (44.6%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary

Which is a better investment: ASML or AMAT?

Share This Comparison of ASML vs AMAT

Relative Performance of ASML vs AMAT (Normalized to 100)

Trade ASML or AMAT

Key Takeaways

Investment Comparison

ASML vs Applied Materials Performance Over Time

ASML vs Applied Materials Correlation

Drawdown

ASML vs Applied Materials Volatility (ASML vs AMAT)

Risk-adjusted ratios

Sharpe Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sharpe Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Sortino Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sortino Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Calmar Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Calmar Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Sterling Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Sterling Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Treynor Ratio of ASML and AMAT

Treynor Ratio: ASML vs. AMAT

Ulcer Index of ASML and AMAT

Ulcer Index: ASML vs. AMAT

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): ASML vs. Applied Materials

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape: ASML vs. AMAT (1-Year)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Downside co-move map: ASML vs. AMAT (2σ)

Days when both ASML and AMAT had a big down day (2σ)

Days when ASML had a big down day

Days when AMAT had a big down day

Full Comparison of ASML vs. Applied Materials (1-Year)

Inputs & conventions

Formulas

ASML vs Applied Materials: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: ASML or AMAT?

Does ASML provide diversification when held with AMAT?

How bad are the worst 5% days for ASML vs AMAT?

Do ASML and AMAT crash together on bad days?

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: ASML or AMAT?

Can ASML and AMAT be combined in a portfolio?