C'mon.... especially since you believe (ostensibly) that you're just being objective.
The first time I saw a stock selling at $20 having earned a dime in the last 12 months, I gasped. (That was many years ago.) ... One learns pretty quickly that if stocks have value because one expects them to pay dividends, and if that's predicated on their making money, one is going to have to come up with estimates as to HOW MUCH money they will earn in the years ahead.
(This lecture will end in seconds, I promise.) And everybody agrees that growth of Sales or EPS on the order of 80% p.a. is not sustainable. So, without reducing it to a formula -- because none exists -- analysts look out a year or 2 and one seldom sees (pharma is probably the most obvious exception) a PE of 200, say, using those projected EPS numbers.
I'll grant you that price/sales is a very useful ratio, but an extension of the above (as elementary as it is universally followed on the street) demands that one "adjust" what one believes is an appropriate ratio in situations where the present and the near future (extra points, of course, for any confidence one can assign to those future numbers) are enormously different. In short, ANAD is not out of line with other "semis" using your favored P/S ratio -- IF we look out into the future. It's not easy, and it's certainly not certain, but it's sound! Your method is good for debating neophytes -- not much else.