PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
-0.35%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 23.41%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.52%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 74.61%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-16.03%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 1221.88%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-5.08%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 1221.88%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-4.78%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 205.88%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.81%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 200.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 3.96%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.10%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 5.21%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-0.00%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.68%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 27.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-47.69%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 86.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
54.04%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 91.36%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
24.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 79.25%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.53%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
107.34%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 95.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
102.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 165.81%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
86.39%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
179.18%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 15.43% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
330.89%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 190.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
121.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
36.24%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 9.75%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
10.06%
Below 50% of MU's 40.56%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
8.51%
Below 50% of MU's 34.41%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1145.59%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1145.59% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
193.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 193.66% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
66.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 66.64% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
5.52%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 18.62%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
2.96%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.76%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.07%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.38%
BV/share growth of 1.38% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-6.95%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.58%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 14.36%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.81%
SG&A growth well above MU's 1.27%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.