ASML says scarce EUV capacity is improving its pricing power, but reported TSMC resistance, conflicting descriptions of a 10% DUV increase and negotiated customer contracts leave the size and reach of any price rise unresolved.
ASML has a credible case for charging more for scarce lithography capacity. It does not yet have public evidence of a uniform price increase: the percentage, products, customers and final contract economics remain unsettled.
The claim that TSMC is resisting ASML's planned increases originated in an account citing people familiar with the discussions, as a separate summary and a later report recount. Neither presents the negotiations as independently confirmed by ASML or TSMC. The first summary provides no proposed percentage or contract terms.
The more detailed summaries do not describe the DUV talks the same way. One version says some Chinese customers agreed to a 10% increase on less advanced DUV tool lines. Another summary says ASML told some customers, including Chinese chipmakers, that it intended to charge 10% more. That version says the underlying account relied on four unidentified people, that ASML had discussed higher EUV prices with TSMC and that TSMC resisted increases for both EUV and DUV equipment.
Those are materially different stages of a negotiation: notifying customers of an intended price is not the same as securing their agreement. ASML and TSMC declined to comment to the original publication, according to the linked summary; the later report said they could not immediately be reached for comment. The available reporting does not identify the DUV models, number of customers, effective date or concessions elsewhere in the contracts.
ASML has directly confirmed only the broader direction. Dassen said the market gives the company “better pricing power” and “a pretty strong runway for potential price improvements going forward.” He said ASML was having those conversations with customers and that improvement should become visible over time. His use of “potential” and his reference to ongoing talks stop short of announcing a completed reset.
ASML's EUV production capacity is nearly fully booked through the end of 2027. The company's 2025 annual report says it is the world's only manufacturer of EUV lithography systems, which print the most intricate layers of advanced chips. For a customer whose process requires EUV, there is no rival EUV machine to substitute.
The economic case is not just technical exclusivity. ASML says EUV can replace complex DUV multi-patterning with fewer exposures, masks and process steps, improving yield and shortening production cycles. Those savings can increase the value of the tool to a chipmaker even before scarcity is considered.
DUV is a different market. ASML calls it the workhorse used for most chip layers, but says Canon and Nikon compete directly with its DUV systems. The company warns that overcapacity, adverse markets or a weaker yen can intensify price competition and reduce prices, sales and margins. Customers can also keep mature equipment running: about 95% of the systems ASML sold over the past 30 years remain in use, and the company refurbishes and upgrades older machines.
The 2025 comparison also cautions against treating a reported China increase as a global DUV benchmark. ASML said DUV business in China was stronger than expected while non-China DUV was marginally weaker than expected as mainstream demand outside China remained weak. Unit sales across DUV technologies fell to 279 from 374 in 2024. A price increase on selected lower-end lines in China could therefore reflect a specific product and regional mix rather than pricing power across DUV.
Scarcity has a supply-chain limit too. ASML sources about 80% of its bill of materials from suppliers. It identifies Carl Zeiss SMT as its exclusive supplier of critical optical components and says Zeiss can produce optical columns only in limited numbers at two German sites. That dependence concentrates ASML's capacity risk and limits how quickly it can convert demand into additional shipments.
ASML's customer base is unusually concentrated. Four customers each generated more than 10% of sales in 2025 and together accounted for €20 billion, or 61.2% of net sales. The largest represented 23.9%, and the two largest 38%. The filing does not identify them in those disclosures, so those percentages cannot be assigned to TSMC from the filing alone.
That concentration gives ASML and its biggest buyers different forms of leverage. Customers that need EUV have no equivalent supplier, but a delayed or reduced order from one major buyer can materially affect ASML. The company lists customer capital-spending cuts, cancellations and delays among its risks.
The contract structure makes a proposed equipment increase an incomplete measure. ASML says most net sales come through volume purchase agreements whose terms can cover as long as five years. Those agreements can include discounts, credits for later purchases, free goods or services and variable consideration tied to order volume or system performance. A higher machine price can therefore be offset, preserved or redistributed elsewhere in the package.
TSMC's relationship with ASML also predates the current negotiation. In 2012, TSMC joined Intel and Samsung in a customer co-investment program that secured €1.38 billion of aggregate research-and-development commitments for next-generation lithography, notably EUV. Under the program announcement, the three customers were to acquire an aggregate 23% minority stake for €3.85 billion; the cash proceeds were to be returned to other ASML shareholders, and the customer shares were non-voting except in exceptional circumstances.
That history shows a relationship built around joint investment as well as purchasing, but it does not determine the 2026 price. It does explain why a negotiation between ASML and TSMC is broader than a supplier changing a posted list price.
The next evidence must come from realized contracts or direct company disclosure. A confirmed percentage is useful only if it is accompanied by the models covered, the customer group, the effective date and any changes to volume discounts, credits, installation, warranties, service or future-purchase rights.
ASML's later financial reports can provide indirect tests: price improvement across more than one tool family or region; stable order volumes and delivery timing despite higher prices; and better margins after accounting for product mix, supplier costs and contract concessions. Direct confirmation from ASML or TSMC would resolve the current reliance on unidentified sources and conflicting summaries.
Until then, nearly booked EUV capacity supports ASML's negotiating position, and TSMC's reported resistance shows the counterweight. The unresolved issue is not whether ASML can ask for more, but how much of the increase remains after its largest customers negotiate the rest of the package.