Profit Capture vs Capital Burden
A cross-company view of how operating margin and direct CapEx intensity differ across collected AI infrastructure value-chain positions.
Across the collected AI infrastructure evidence nodes, how are operating margin and direct CapEx intensity distributed across value-chain positions?
This is the first completed comparison view of CM Terminal Analytics v1.
Framing
Core thesis
This v1 comparison layer is filing-grounded and descriptive: it summarizes how operating margin and direct CapEx intensity line up across six evidence nodes, without claiming a full multi-segment industry model.
The first collected evidence nodes suggest that AI infrastructure economics are not evenly distributed. Platform and equipment-layer suppliers can show high margins with lower direct CapEx intensity, while foundry and memory suppliers carry heavier manufacturing capital burden and stronger cycle exposure.
This page uses company-level filing metrics as a first comparison layer. It does not yet include segment-level decomposition, revenue currency normalization, valuation, or forward-looking estimates.
Table
Latest-year comparison
Uses the latest collected fiscal year for each company. Revenue is shown in original reporting currency for transparency; cross-company conclusions rely primarily on ratios.
The chart does not compare absolute revenue across currencies; it compares ratio-based business model signals. The scatter plot uses operating margin and CapEx intensity only—revenue is not an axis.
| Company | Role | Fiscal Year | Currency | Revenue | Gross Margin | Operating Margin | R&D Intensity | CapEx Intensity | Analytical Read | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA | Compute platform | 2025 | USD | $130,497.0M | 74.99% | 62.42% | 9.90% | 2.48% | Platform-level profit capture with high operating margin and low direct CapEx intensity. | collected |
| AMD | Compute challenger | 2024 | USD | $25,785.0M | 49.35% | 7.37% | 25.03% | 2.47% | AI compute exposure without NVIDIA-style full-company operating leverage in the collected period. | collected |
| TSMC | Foundry manufacturing | 2024 | TWD | NT$2,894,307.7M | 56.12% | 45.68% | 7.05% | 33.03% | High operating margin with heavy direct manufacturing CapEx burden. | collected |
| Broadcom | Custom silicon / networking / infrastructure software | 2024 | USD | $51,574.0M | 63.03% | 26.10% | 18.05% | 1.06% | High gross margin and low direct CapEx intensity, with FY2024 operating margin affected by VMware-related expense structure. | collected |
| Micron | Memory / HBM / cycle risk | 2024 | USD | $25,111.0M | 22.35% | 5.19% | 13.66% | 33.40% | Memory-cycle exposure with high CapEx intensity and margin recovery after a severe FY2023 downturn. | collected |
| ASML | Lithography equipment / EUV bottleneck | 2024 | EUR | €28,262.9M | 51.28% | 31.92% | 15.23% | 7.31% | Equipment-layer bottleneck economics with stable high margin and lower direct CapEx intensity than foundry or memory manufacturers. | collected |
Operating margin vs direct CapEx intensity
A ratio-based view that avoids direct comparison of absolute revenue across reporting currencies.
Status: collected, pending independent review.
Reading
Interpretation
Margin capture is not uniform
The latest collected rows show a wide spread in full-company operating margin. That spread is consistent with different value-chain roles—platform and bottleneck equipment economics versus more competitive or cyclical layers—rather than a single “AI beta” story.
Capital burden separates business models
Direct CapEx intensity clusters differently by role: manufacturing-heavy positions carry structurally higher reinvestment in plant and equipment than fabless or equipment-layer profiles in this filing slice.
Memory behaves like a cycle-risk node
Micron's latest-year recovery should be read alongside its FY2023 negative gross profit and operating loss in the collected series. The memory layer cannot be interpreted only through one recovered year.
Company profiles are evidence nodes
This comparison is built from company-level filing data. It is a v1 comparison layer—not a finished industry dashboard, not segment attribution, and not a substitute for reading the underlying profiles and notes.
Methodology and limitations
- Data comes from collected issuer filings stored in financial-metrics.json.
- Uses the latest collected fiscal year per company (maximum fiscalYear in the file for each ticker).
- Ratios are calculated from stored raw financial figures in the dataset; ratio metrics are the primary read.
- Revenue is shown in each issuer's reporting currency.
- No FX conversion is performed.
- Cross-company comparison relies on ratio metrics, not absolute revenue ranking.
- TSMC reports in TWD, ASML reports in EUR, and the other collected issuers on this page report in USD.
- Segment-level decomposition is not yet included.
- This page is descriptive analytics, not investment advice.
- Status remains collected / pending independent review.
Evidence
Company evidence nodes
These profiles preserve the source trail, fiscal-year treatment, metric definitions, and company-level context behind the v1 comparison view.
Broadcom
Role
Custom silicon / networking / infrastructure software
Latest fiscal year
2024
Status
collected
This comparison page is descriptive only. It does not recommend transactions in any security. It presents the v1 comparison layer—not a completed multi-segment industry dashboard.