Five Micron Suppliers Account for 25.45% of the Displayed Cost Base
September 14, 2026
Altsets
Research by Altsets Research
The five quantified Micron supplier relationships in the supplied data sum to 25.45% of Micron's cost base. ASML and Lam alone account for 17.43 percentage points, showing that the visible quantified exposure is concentrated toward the top.
Data used:Altsets Supply Chain Intelligence: 90k+ entities, 400k+ relationships, 20+ years of history.
Key findings
- The five supplied customer-cost percentages sum to 25.45 percentage points of Micron's cost base, with ASML alone contributing 11.91 percentage points.
- ASML and Lam together account for 17.43 percentage points, about 68.5% of the five-relationship total, while the result remains bounded to quantified relationships rather than Micron's complete supplier network.
The five quantified Micron supplier relationships in the supplied Altsets data sum to 25.45% of Micron's cost base. ASML is the largest single relationship at 11.91%, followed by Lam Research at 5.52%, Applied Materials at 3.84%, KLA at 2.84%, and Shin-Etsu Chemical at 1.34%. This is not Micron's complete supplier concentration. It is a bounded conclusion about five relationships whose customer-side cost percentages are available in the same supplied research set.
ASML alone represents almost half of the displayed five-supplier cost exposure
The five customer-cost percentages are directly comparable because they are all expressed against Micron's cost base. Adding 11.91%, 5.52%, 3.84%, 2.84%, and 1.34% produces 25.45 percentage points of displayed Micron cost exposure. Within that five-relationship total, ASML contributes about 46.8%. ASML and Lam together contribute 17.43 percentage points, or about 68.5% of the five-supplier total.
That is a stronger conclusion than simply saying ASML is Micron's largest quantified supplier relationship in the set. The visible exposure is not evenly spread across the five suppliers. Almost seven out of every ten percentage points in this bounded five-edge total sit in ASML and Lam. Applied Materials, KLA, and Shin-Etsu together account for 8.02 percentage points, which is less than ASML's 11.91% by itself.
The result is useful because it separates coverage from concentration
A supplier list can look diversified because it contains many names. Micron's own filing says the company generally has multiple supply sources, while also warning that only a limited number of suppliers can deliver certain materials and services and that some key equipment types, including photolithography tools, can depend on a single supplier. The Altsets relationships add another layer by showing that the quantified economic weight visible across suppliers is uneven rather than distributed equally.
The important limitation is that 25.45% is not a full procurement-coverage statistic. Micron has other suppliers, including structural relationships in the supplied network whose economic metrics are not displayed. Those relationships cannot be inserted into the sum as zero, and the five quantified edges should not be described as the entirety of Micron's supplier base. The conclusion is narrower and more defensible: the five quantified relationships alone already represent 25.45% of the displayed cost base, with most of that visible weight concentrated in ASML and Lam.
This changes what deserves attention during an upstream shock
If the investor is monitoring equipment availability, export restrictions, supplier capacity, or semiconductor manufacturing investment, the five relationships do not deserve equal research time. ASML has the largest customer-side cost percentage in the set, and Lam is a clear second. Applied Materials and KLA remain material, while Shin-Etsu adds a smaller quantified percentage plus a different materials exposure.
That ranking still does not tell the investor which supplier is technically hardest to replace. Cost share is financial materiality, not a substitutability score. ASML's 11.91% makes it economically important in the displayed data, while Micron's separate single-supplier warning around certain photolithography equipment gives the investor a reason to investigate operational criticality. Other suppliers can be smaller by cost and still matter disproportionately to production if their products are difficult to substitute.
The conclusion is a bounded concentration finding, not a complete procurement map
The supplied Altsets data supports a concrete conclusion: five quantified suppliers account for 25.45 percentage points of Micron's cost base in the displayed relationships, and ASML plus Lam account for 17.43 percentage points of that total. That is enough to show that the visible quantified supplier exposure is concentrated toward the top even before structural-only and unobserved relationships are considered.
The partial supplier HHI guide explains how to measure concentration when coverage is incomplete. The financial versus operational criticality guide explains why a large cost percentage and a true production bottleneck remain separate conclusions.
For relationship definitions and evidence limits, read the Altsets methodology.