Core Insights - Navitas Semiconductor (NVTS) and ON Semiconductor (ON) are significant players in the semiconductor industry, focusing on power solutions for AI data centers and energy systems [1][2] - Investment analysis indicates that ON Semiconductor currently presents a more favorable investment outlook compared to Navitas Semiconductor [2] Group 1: Navitas Semiconductor (NVTS) - Navitas Semiconductor is targeting AI data centers and energy infrastructure as key growth areas, with power demand for AI projected to increase from 7 gigawatts in 2023 to over 70 gigawatts by 2030 [3][4] - The company has partnered with NVIDIA to develop 800-volt AI data centers, estimating this market could reach $2.6 billion annually by 2030 [4] - However, NVTS faces near-term challenges, including expected revenue declines due to tariff risks in China and reduced demand in the EV and industrial sectors [5][6] - The Zacks Consensus estimate for NVTS's full-year 2025 revenues is $48.97 million, reflecting a year-over-year decline of 41.2% [6][7] Group 2: ON Semiconductor (ON) - ON Semiconductor is focusing on automotive, industrial, and AI data center markets, with AI data center revenues nearly doubling year-over-year [10][11] - The company has seen a 23% sequential revenue growth in China, driven by silicon carbide adoption in new EV models [12][14] - ON is restructuring its portfolio by phasing out older products and enhancing its image sensor business for higher-value applications [13] - The Zacks Consensus estimate for ON's full-year 2025 revenues is $5.96 billion, indicating a year-over-year decline of 15.9% [14][15] Group 3: Valuation and Market Performance - Year-to-date, NVTS shares have surged 294.2%, while ON shares have declined by 19.5% [16] - NVTS trades at a forward sales multiple of 55.47x, significantly higher than ON's 3.31x, making ON a more attractive investment option [19] - ON's combination of rising demand in China and strong AI traction positions it for a stronger recovery compared to NVTS, which is hindered by weak demand in China [22][23]