ASE Technology vs UMC

Method and sources

• Revenue growth (1 year): ASE Technology 8.4% (FY2025), UMC 2.3% (FY2025)
• Revenue growth (3-year CAGR): ASE Technology −1.3% (FY2025), UMC −5.2% (FY2025)
• Operating margin: ASE Technology 8.0% (FY2025), UMC 18.5% (FY2025)
• Gross margin: ASE Technology 17.7% (FY2025), UMC 29.0% (FY2025)
• Net margin: ASE Technology 6.2% (FY2025), UMC 17.0% (FY2025)
• FCF margin: ASE Technology −3.5% (FY2025), UMC 21.9% (FY2025)

Latest fiscal year per company: ASE Technology FY2025, UMC FY2025. Fiscal years end on different dates, so years are not calendar-aligned.

Both report in TWD. Amounts are as filed, not converted.

Why this pair: same peer group, revenue within 4x in the same currency. Peer groups are curated by hand from each company's business as described in its own 10-K/20-F (what it sells, not its SIC code). A company can sit in more than one group. Within a group, a pair is listed when both companies report in the same currency and the larger company's latest fiscal-year revenue is at most 4x the smaller one's; each company keeps its 4 nearest peers by revenue ratio. Companies reporting in different currencies are never size-matched (amounts are not converted); a short list of obvious same-industry pairs across currencies is added by hand, with the reason, as are two direct competitor pairs outside the size rule (AMD vs NVIDIA, Intel vs NVIDIA).

Derived = calculated by Hollsteen from reported SEC values; reported = as tagged in the filing. SEC filings only, no market data.