Competitive Comparison
Meta vs. Alphabet vs. Microsoft vs. Amazon
Four mega-cap AI-capex bets, two of which I hold outright and two of which I've chosen to watch instead — compared on growth-adjusted valuation and the scale of their AI spending.
| Metric | Meta Platforms (META) | Alphabet (GOOGL) | Microsoft (MSFT) | Amazon (AMZN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PEG ratio | 0.90 | 1.88 | 1.58 | 1.47 |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.02x | 24.55x | 19.61x | 18.72x |
| Capex (2026) | $115–135B (guidance) | −$109.92B (TTM) | $97.23B (TTM) | −$151.00B (TTM) |
PEG ratio, compared
Why Meta and Alphabet, not Microsoft or Amazon
All four are funding massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The PEG picture has shifted since the prior update: Meta (0.90) now screens as the cheapest of the four on a growth-adjusted basis, with Amazon (1.47) and Microsoft (1.58) next, and Alphabet (1.88) — previously the cheapest — now the most expensive, reflecting the market re-rating Alphabet's growth expectations upward faster than its earnings have caught up. I hold Meta because its core ad-targeting business is a real, checkable cash engine funding the AI bet, not a story on its own; Alphabet for a credible long-horizon AI research lead, even at today's richer multiple. Microsoft and Amazon are watchlist names rather than holdings mainly for portfolio-construction reasons, not a fundamentals verdict against them — Amazon's negative TTM capex-adjusted free cash flow in particular is worth watching before I'd add it outright, and both would add real overlap with my existing AI-infrastructure exposure through NBIS, CRWV, and VRT rather than diversify it.