Home > Comparison > Technology > MPWR vs CEVA
The strategic rivalry between Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc. shapes the semiconductor sector’s innovation frontier. Monolithic Power Systems operates as a capital-intensive designer of power electronics solutions, while CEVA focuses on licensing advanced digital signal processing technologies. This head-to-head pits asset-heavy manufacturing against scalable intellectual property licensing. This analysis will identify which business model offers superior risk-adjusted returns for a diversified portfolio navigating technology’s evolving landscape.
Table of contents
Companies Overview
Monolithic Power Systems and CEVA shape critical niches within the semiconductor industry’s evolving landscape.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.: Power Electronics Pioneer
Monolithic Power Systems leads in semiconductor-based power electronics, primarily generating revenue through DC-to-DC integrated circuits. These ICs regulate voltages in computing, automotive, and industrial sectors. In 2026, the company sharpens its focus on expanding its footprint across global markets, selling directly and via distributors to OEMs and electronic manufacturers worldwide.
CEVA, Inc.: Wireless and AI IP Innovator
CEVA specializes in licensing wireless connectivity and smart sensing technologies to semiconductor and OEM firms. Its revenue stems from licensing digital signal processors and AI platforms for 5G, IoT, and imaging applications. The firm emphasizes advancing its AI processor capabilities and broadening adoption in mobile and IoT devices during the current year.
Strategic Collision: Similarities & Divergences
Monolithic Power Systems and CEVA both operate in semiconductors but diverge sharply: one sells integrated hardware solutions, the other licenses intellectual property. They compete indirectly in enabling next-generation electronics but through different value chains—component manufacturing versus IP licensing. Their investment profiles reflect this contrast: MPWR exhibits capital-intensive growth while CEVA leans on scalable licensing revenue.
Income Statement Comparison
This data dissects the core profitability and scalability of both corporate engines to reveal who dominates the bottom line:
| Metric | Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR) | CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 2.79B | 107M |
| Cost of Revenue | 1.25B | 13M |
| Operating Expenses | 811M | 102M |
| Gross Profit | 1.54B | 94M |
| EBITDA | 780M | -3.4M |
| EBIT | 729M | -7.5M |
| Interest Expense | 0 | 0 |
| Net Income | 616M | -8.8M |
| EPS | 12.82 | -0.37 |
| Fiscal Year | 2025 | 2024 |
Income Statement Analysis: The Bottom-Line Duel
This income statement comparison reveals the true efficiency and profitability of Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc. across recent fiscal years.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. Analysis
Monolithic Power Systems shows a robust revenue growth from 1.2B in 2021 to 2.8B in 2025, with net income rising markedly over the same period. Its gross margin holds steady above 55%, while the net margin in 2025 remains strong at 22%, reflecting efficient cost management. Despite a dip in net income growth last year, the company maintains solid momentum and operational leverage.
CEVA, Inc. Analysis
CEVA’s revenue grew moderately to 107M in 2024 from 100M in 2020, but net income stayed negative throughout, reaching -9M in 2024. The company boasts an impressive gross margin of 88%, yet suffers from negative EBIT and net margins, indicating high operating costs relative to revenue. Recent improvements in EBIT and net margin growth suggest some operational progress, though profitability remains elusive.
Margin Strength vs. Profitability Scale
Monolithic Power Systems dominates with strong revenue and net income growth paired with healthy margins, while CEVA excels in gross margin but struggles to convert sales into profits. The fundamental winner is Monolithic Power Systems, offering a more attractive profile for investors seeking sustained profitability and scalable growth.
Financial Ratios Comparison
These vital ratios act as a diagnostic tool to expose the underlying fiscal health, valuation premiums, and capital efficiency of the companies compared below:
| Ratios | Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR) | CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) |
|---|---|---|
| ROE | 16.6% | -3.3% |
| ROIC | 14.9% | -2.7% |
| P/E | 70.7 | -84.8 |
| P/B | 11.7 | 2.8 |
| Current Ratio | 5.9 | 7.1 |
| Quick Ratio | 4.4 | 7.1 |
| D/E | 0 | 2.1% |
| Debt-to-Assets | 0 | 1.8% |
| Interest Coverage | 0 | 0 |
| Asset Turnover | 0.65 | 0.35 |
| Fixed Asset Turnover | 4.45 | 8.43 |
| Payout ratio | 46.2% | 0 |
| Dividend yield | 0.65% | 0 |
| Fiscal Year | 2025 | 2024 |
Efficiency & Valuation Duel: The Vital Signs
Ratios act as the company’s DNA, revealing hidden risks and operational excellence beyond surface-level financial statements.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Monolithic Power Systems posts a strong 16.55% ROE and 22.07% net margin, demonstrating solid profitability. However, its P/E ratio at 70.69 signals an expensive valuation relative to earnings. The firm balances this with modest dividend yield of 0.65% and reinvests heavily in R&D, supporting future growth and operational efficiency.
CEVA, Inc.
CEVA exhibits negative profitability with a -3.3% ROE and -8.22% net margin, indicating operational challenges. Despite a favorable P/E of -84.79, this reflects earnings losses rather than value. CEVA maintains a low debt level but returns no dividends, focusing on heavy R&D investment to drive potential turnaround and innovation.
Premium Valuation vs. Operational Struggles
Monolithic Power offers superior profitability and a clear growth reinvestment strategy, albeit at a stretched valuation. CEVA trades cheaper but suffers fundamental losses and weak returns. Investors seeking operational strength may prefer Monolithic Power, while those tolerating risk for turnaround potential might consider CEVA.
Which one offers the Superior Shareholder Reward?
Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR) offers a more attractive shareholder reward than CEVA, Inc. MPWR boasts a modest dividend yield near 0.8% with a sustainable payout ratio around 13-46%. It combines dividends with aggressive buybacks, supporting total returns. CEVA pays no dividends and delivers weak free cash flow, relying solely on reinvestment without buybacks. MPWR’s balanced distribution model enhances long-term value, while CEVA’s losses and negative margins pose risks. I conclude MPWR presents the superior total return profile in 2026.
Comparative Score Analysis: The Strategic Profile
The radar chart reveals the fundamental DNA and trade-offs of Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc., highlighting their contrasting financial strengths and vulnerabilities:
Monolithic Power Systems scores higher in ROE (4 vs. 1) and ROA (5 vs. 1), indicating superior profitability and asset efficiency. However, it carries significant balance sheet risk with a poor debt-to-equity score (1 vs. 4) and unfavorable valuation metrics (P/E and P/B scores both at 1). CEVA leans on a stronger capital structure, reflected in its favorable debt-to-equity score, but suffers from weak profitability and asset utilization. MPWR shows a more lopsided profile driven by operational efficiency, while CEVA maintains a more conservative financial risk stance.
Bankruptcy Risk: Solvency Showdown
Monolithic Power Systems and CEVA both sit comfortably in the safe zone on the Altman Z-Score scale, but MPWR’s score (63.2) vastly exceeds CEVA’s (10), indicating a far stronger buffer against bankruptcy risk in this cycle:
Financial Health: Quality of Operations
Both companies show average financial health per Piotroski F-Scores, with MPWR slightly ahead at 5 versus CEVA’s 4. Neither firm signals red flags, but their middling scores suggest room for improvement in operational efficiency and financial robustness:
How are the two companies positioned?
This section dissects the operational DNA of MPWR and CEVA by comparing their revenue distribution by segment and internal dynamics. The goal is to confront their economic moats and identify which model offers the most resilient and sustainable competitive advantage today.
Revenue Segmentation: The Strategic Mix
This visual comparison dissects how Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc. diversify their income streams and where their primary sector bets lie:
Monolithic Power Systems anchors revenue in DC To DC Products with $1.72B in 2023, dwarfing its Lighting Control segment at $102M. CEVA shows a more balanced mix in 2024, with License revenue at $60M and Royalties at $47M. MPWR’s heavy reliance on one dominant segment signals infrastructure dominance but raises concentration risk. CEVA’s diversified streams suggest ecosystem lock-in but with smaller absolute scale.
Strengths and Weaknesses Comparison
This table compares the Strengths and Weaknesses of Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc.:
MPWR Strengths
- Strong profitability with 22% net margin
- High ROE at 16.55%
- Zero debt supports financial stability
- Favorable quick ratio at 4.38
- Significant global presence, especially in China and Taiwan
CEVA Strengths
- Favorable quick ratio at 7.09
- Low debt to assets at 1.8%
- High fixed asset turnover at 8.43
- Positive P/E valuation despite losses
- Diverse revenue streams from licenses and royalties
MPWR Weaknesses
- High P/E of 70.69 suggests overvaluation
- Elevated price-to-book at 11.7
- Unfavorable current ratio at 5.91
- Weighted average cost of capital above ROIC
- Low dividend yield at 0.65%
- Asset turnover moderate at 0.65
CEVA Weaknesses
- Negative profitability metrics: net margin -8.22%, ROE -3.3%, ROIC -2.68%
- Interest coverage at zero signals risk
- Unfavorable asset turnover at 0.35
- Unfavorable current ratio despite high quick ratio
- No dividend yield
Monolithic Power Systems excels in profitability and balance sheet strength but shows valuation and liquidity concerns. CEVA struggles with profitability and efficiency despite solid liquidity and low leverage. These profiles indicate contrasting strategic focuses and risk exposures.
The Moat Duel: Analyzing Competitive Defensibility
A durable structural moat is the only shield protecting long-term profits from relentless competitive pressure. Let’s dissect each firm’s moat:
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.: Integrated Circuit Innovation & Scale Advantage
MPWR’s moat stems from cost advantages and specialized power IC designs. Its 26% EBIT margin and 55% gross margin reveal robust profitability. Expanding automotive and industrial markets could further deepen this moat in 2026.
CEVA, Inc.: Licensing IP with Technology Niche Limitations
CEVA relies on intangible assets—IP licensing for DSP and AI processors—but its negative EBIT margin signals weak profitability. Unlike MPWR, CEVA struggles to convert innovation into earnings. Growth in AI and 5G could offer upside if cost structure improves.
Moat Strength: Cost Efficiency vs. IP Licensing Fragility
MPWR’s positive ROIC over WACC and margin stability give it a wider, more resilient moat. CEVA’s value destruction and declining ROIC expose vulnerabilities. MPWR is better positioned to defend and grow its market share long-term.
Which stock offers better returns?
Over the past year, Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. showed strong price gains with accelerating momentum, while CEVA, Inc. experienced a slight overall decline but a recent mild recovery in trading dynamics.
Trend Comparison
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. posted a 79.02% price increase over 12 months, marking a bullish trend with acceleration and a high volatility of 150.74. The stock hit a high of 1229.82 and a low of 477.39.
CEVA, Inc. recorded a -2.72% decline over the same period, indicating a bearish trend despite acceleration. Its price ranged between 17.39 and 34.67, with low volatility at 4.41.
Monolithic Power Systems outperformed CEVA significantly, delivering the highest market returns with strong upward momentum throughout the year.
Target Prices
Analysts present a bullish consensus for Monolithic Power Systems and CEVA, signaling solid upside potential.
| Company | Target Low | Target High | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. | 1,200 | 1,500 | 1,313.71 |
| CEVA, Inc. | 28 | 28 | 28 |
Monolithic Power’s target consensus of 1,314 exceeds its current price of 1,230, indicating expected growth. CEVA’s consensus target of 28 also surpasses its 22.54 price, reflecting positive analyst sentiment.
Don’t Let Luck Decide Your Entry Point
Optimize your entry points with our advanced ProRealTime indicators. You’ll get efficient buy signals with precise price targets for maximum performance. Start outperforming now!
How do institutions grade them?
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. Grades
The following table summarizes recent grades from key institutional analysts for Monolithic Power Systems:
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Needham | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-06 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Neutral | 2026-02-06 |
| Truist Securities | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-06 |
| Keybanc | maintain | Overweight | 2026-02-06 |
| Wells Fargo | maintain | Overweight | 2026-02-06 |
| Stifel | maintain | Buy | 2026-02-04 |
| Wells Fargo | maintain | Overweight | 2026-01-26 |
| Wells Fargo | upgrade | Overweight | 2026-01-15 |
| Truist Securities | maintain | Buy | 2025-12-19 |
| Citigroup | maintain | Buy | 2025-11-03 |
CEVA, Inc. Grades
This table presents recent grades issued by recognized financial institutions for CEVA:
| Grading Company | Action | New Grade | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barclays | maintain | Overweight | 2025-11-12 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-11-11 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-08-14 |
| Oppenheimer | maintain | Outperform | 2025-05-09 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-05-08 |
| Barclays | maintain | Overweight | 2025-05-08 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-04-23 |
| Barclays | maintain | Overweight | 2025-02-14 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-02-14 |
| Rosenblatt | maintain | Buy | 2025-02-11 |
Which company has the best grades?
Monolithic Power Systems generally receives consistent “Buy” and “Overweight” ratings, with a recent upgrade by Wells Fargo. CEVA also shows strong support, mostly “Buy” and “Overweight” ratings with an “Outperform” from Oppenheimer. Investors might view Monolithic Power Systems’ frequent recent upgrades as a sign of growing confidence; however, CEVA’s steady “Buy” consensus suggests stable institutional backing.
Risks specific to each company
The following categories identify the critical pressure points and systemic threats facing both firms in the 2026 market environment:
1. Market & Competition
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Strong market position in power electronics with diversified end markets but faces intense semiconductor competition.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Licensor model exposes CEVA to competitive pressure from alternative IP providers and evolving wireless standards.
2. Capital Structure & Debt
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Zero debt, excellent interest coverage, strong balance sheet minimizes financial risk.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Low debt-to-equity ratio but weak interest coverage (0), indicating potential liquidity stress.
3. Stock Volatility
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Beta 1.455 indicates above-market volatility but relative stability given size and sector.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Beta 1.497 shows higher sensitivity to market swings, increasing investor risk.
4. Regulatory & Legal
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Exposure to global trade policies and semiconductor export controls could disrupt operations.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Licensing business model faces IP litigation risks and regulatory scrutiny on technology transfers.
5. Supply Chain & Operations
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Complex global supply chain in semiconductors vulnerable to component shortages and geopolitical tensions.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Dependency on semiconductor OEMs for licensees exposes CEVA to indirect supply chain disruptions.
6. ESG & Climate Transition
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Increasing pressure to meet energy efficiency standards and reduce carbon footprint in manufacturing.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- ESG risks moderate but reliant on licensees’ compliance and public perception of AI and wireless tech.
7. Geopolitical Exposure
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR)
- Significant exposure to Asia-Pacific markets, especially China and Taiwan, heightening geopolitical risk.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA)
- Global licensing model mitigates some risk but still vulnerable to US-China tech tensions impacting partners.
Which company shows a better risk-adjusted profile?
Monolithic Power Systems faces its largest risk in market competition and geopolitical exposure, but its pristine balance sheet and strong profitability mitigate financial stress. CEVA’s most impactful risk lies in weak profitability and interest coverage, which undermine its financial stability despite low leverage. MPWR clearly offers a superior risk-adjusted profile. Its Altman Z-Score (63.2) and favorable return ratios contrast sharply with CEVA’s negative margins and interest coverage at zero, signaling higher bankruptcy risk and operational fragility for CEVA.
Final Verdict: Which stock to choose?
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPWR) impresses with its superpower: robust value creation through consistent returns on invested capital above its cost of capital. It operates as a cash-generative powerhouse with strong operational efficiency. The key point of vigilance is its premium valuation, which could temper near-term upside. MPWR suits an Aggressive Growth portfolio focused on quality and scale.
CEVA, Inc. (CEVA) leans on its strategic moat of specialized intellectual property in signal processing, offering a niche but defensible market position. It provides a relatively safer balance sheet than MPWR’s high valuation, though it currently struggles to generate positive returns. CEVA fits a GARP (Growth at a Reasonable Price) portfolio seeking turnaround potential with moderate risk.
If you prioritize durable profitability and efficient capital use, MPWR outshines due to its solid economic moat despite valuation risks. However, if you seek value in a smaller, innovation-driven firm with room to improve, CEVA offers better stability at a lower price but with a less proven profit model. Both present distinct analytical scenarios depending on risk appetite and strategy.
Disclaimer: Investment carries a risk of loss of initial capital. The past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Be sure to understand risks before making an investment decision.
Go Further
I encourage you to read the complete analyses of Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and CEVA, Inc. to enhance your investment decisions:
