Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Brian Chin
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2025 Q4 (5 quarters).
- Questions
- 26on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 4%1 of 26 questions
- Companies
- 5questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 5with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 26 of 26 questions from 5 companies
TERTeradyne11 questions · 5 reporting periods · 1 of 11 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
Is that an example of your test platform outperforming their internal tester?
Show response
New HDD customer complementing rather than fully replacing captive test. HDD revenue expected to double 2025 to 2026. In SoC, one big player has captive strategy expected to change over next few years as foundry broadens customer base. Memory captive strategy likely more persistent.
I was wondering if you could outline maybe a few catalysts for GPU share gain over the next few years in terms of Teradyne's platform differentiation
Show response
Four key differentiators: more resilient supply chain with shorter lead times, better reliability and uptime in production, next-gen instruments in beta with more power and memory, and superior mission-mode testing capability for defect detection.
Calendar 2025 Q3
can you give us a sense of how significantly weighted that was the second half and maybe 4Q this year
Show response
View changed dramatically between January (optimistic) and March (pessimistic from uncertainty) to year-end. Compute and networking significantly stronger than expected. Mobile and auto/industrial weaker. Memory strengthened but less than compute.
In Industrial Robotics, do you expect Q4 to ship some positive seasonality Q-on-Q?
Show response
Seasonal uplift expected in Q4 robotics but not a hockey stick. SLT Titan system designed with significant upgradability across AI accelerator generations within power envelope. SLT incumbency advantage similar to but slightly weaker than ATE.
Calendar 2025 Q2
how are you sizing the overall compute TAM this year and also a subsegment of that, the VIP SAM
Show response
Upside to VIP SAM from $400M and to total compute TAM, especially in merchant GPU space. Not providing formal TAM estimate currently.
Would you attribute any of the uptick in test utilization rates to any pull forward of supply chain activity?
Show response
Pull-forward hasn't had meaningful effect on Teradyne. Customers pulling forward end product demand were absorbing it with existing test capacity.
Calendar 2025 Q1
When you size the VIP TAM at around $600 million in '26 and potentially $800 million in 2028, were you including SLT?
Show response
VIP TAM figures are ATE-only. SLT could add 10-30% of total TAM on top. Will provide updated SLT TAM estimate in January.
are you anticipating more meaningful advanced back-end test and packaging lines to be onshored here in the states?
Show response
Onshoring changes ship-to location but not total test demand. Testers purchased at point of wafer volume need, unlike front-end fabs.
Calendar 2024 Q4
can you decompose sort of how that $4.9 billion TAM for 2025 breaks down across Compute, Mobile, et cetera
Show response
Provided full breakdowns for both 2024 ($4.6B) and 2025 ($4.9B) SOC TAM across Compute, Mobile, Auto/Industrial and service.
can you give us maybe a better sense of where Semiconductor Test cell utilization rates are now versus a year ago
Show response
About 10% utilization increase year-on-year exiting 2024. Business mix already shifting from upgrades to system sales, past tipping point.
Would you mind unpacking a little bit what you mean by consolidating the go-to-market?
Show response
Unified marketing, sales and service across UR and MiR. 50 largest partners already sell both; single coverage improves efficiency and customer experience.
AMATApplied Materials5 questions · 4 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q3
I also heard something about thinking that at full scale, gate-all-around could be something like 300,000 wafer per month
Show response
Brice confirmed approximately 100K wafer starts installed or to be installed by quarter end on gate-all-around nodes, with the build-out in the first 3 innings. Subsequent nodes will follow.
Calendar 2025 Q2
what's your view on pacing here and whether this could cause these investments perhaps to spread out over a longer horizon
Show response
Brice noted datacenter growing 20% with AI components at 40%, leading-edge fabs at 100% utilization, and gate-all-around as a significant performance improvement supporting a strong node. Recent announcements from CSPs and foundries show continued energy.
Calendar 2025 Q1
I think you previously disclosed that $549 million reduction in backlog for the fiscal year in a filing
Show response
Brice confirmed the $549M backlog reduction covers more than the fiscal year; the 12-month impact was about $380M, consistent with the $400M annual estimate.
Calendar 2024 Q4
ASML earlier today was upbeat on its outlook for AI-driven DRAM spending overall
Show response
Gary sees litho and materials engineering as complementary, with 4F-squared DRAM focused near-term and 3D DRAM further out, both increasing materials engineering intensity.
is it reasonable that China could go below 30% in '25 if areas like leading-edge foundry or DRAM improve
Show response
Brice noted China variability depends on ICAPS health, as DRAM/NAND is mostly served and leading-edge restricted; watching automotive, industrial, and analog signals.
KLACKLA Corporation5 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q3
How much of your continued optimism on market and KLA growth in packaging next year involves expansion opportunities in HBM packaging?
Show response
Bren expressed confidence in packaging share gains across both logic and HBM memory, with positive trends in both segments expected to continue into 2026.
how much of that second half outlook is tied to new cleanroom space availability
Show response
Bren acknowledged some space constraints could affect timing into second half 2026 and 2027 with new memory fabs coming online, but does not see it as a major gating factor currently.
Calendar 2025 Q2
your near-term opportunity set in advanced packaging was particularly in 2.5D or CoWoS packaging rather than in HBM. Is that the case?
Show response
Bren confirmed share gains primarily in CoWoS logic packaging with increasing HBM momentum, driven by inspection applications with high sampling rates rather than metrology.
Calendar 2024 Q4
can you comment on the magnitude of residual spending you still see with them besides R&D and technology development?
Show response
Rick gave a brief answer indicating KLA has derisked spending from non-leading foundries in their 2025 plan, suggesting limited dependence on those customers.
how about the process control intensity going from 2 nanometer [indiscernible] around to 16A?
Show response
Rick said it's too early to model 16A intensity but noted the fundamental shift toward larger, higher-value die with higher density creates growing opportunities for process control.
LRCXLam Research3 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q3
Of the $8 billion in WFE spending, on a kind of rough cut, could you partition that across on a percentage basis, advanced logic, DRAM and NAND?
Show response
Doug revealed more than half of the $8B WFE per $100B data center spend comes from memory (enterprise SSDs and HBM), with GPUs and accelerators as the remainder.
Calendar 2025 Q2
is that for a 400-layer application?
Show response
Tim declined to specify the exact layer count but confirmed the Vantex win is multigenerational, covering current through next couple of technology nodes.
Calendar 2024 Q4
For trying to resist deposition in development, can you remind us of the SAM or maybe revenue potential
Show response
Doug highlighted the DQR production tool-of-record decision as a major milestone, though near-term dollars will be modest in 2025.
MUMicron Technology, Inc.2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2024 Q4
Does this shipment mix actually closely match your internal production mix? Meaning that it's not just you're holding back inventory, but structurally, you've shifted a high majority of your DRAM p...
Show response
Sadana confirmed the structural production shift to leading-edge products is real, with leading-edge nodes very constrained and capacity dedicated to fast HBM ramp.
Do you expect maybe some of these other suppliers to follow more quickly this time, similar actions or lag like they did previously?
Show response
Sadana declined to speculate on competitor actions but emphasized Micron's own decisive supply reduction to align supply with demand.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| TER Teradyne | 11 | 9%1 of 11 questions |
| AMAT Applied Materials | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| KLAC KLA Corporation | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| LRCX Lam Research | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
| MU Micron Technology, Inc. | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 10 | 0%none of 10 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q1 | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q2 | 5 | 20%1 of 5 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q3 | 6 | 0%none of 6 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q4 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
- 2024 Q410 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 10 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q13 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 3 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q25 questions · challenge rate 20% (1 of 5 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q36 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 6 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q42 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Competitive Dynamics11
- Demand11
- Innovation & R&D8
- Capex Investment7
- Cloud & AI5
- Revenue Growth5
- Supply Chain3
- Trade Tariffs2
- Macroeconomic1
- Product Launch1
Show all 11 topics
- Geographic Expansion1