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.
1.04%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 10.83%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
0.29%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 20.40%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
0.32%
EBIT growth below 50% of MU's 23.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
-0.96%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 23.78%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
297.09%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 13.09%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
294.29%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 10.80%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
297.06%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 10.05%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.20%
Share reduction while MU is at 2.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.20%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.20%
Dividend growth of 0.20% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-42.35%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 13.52%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-45.64%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
56.33%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 201.68%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
47.90%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 231.59%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
27.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 40.37%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
134.19%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 796.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
247.85%
Below 50% of MU's 1277.24%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
94.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 115.50%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
178.55%
Below 50% of MU's 795.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
324.95%
Below 50% of MU's 970.51%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
121.24%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of MU's 151.93%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
45.75%
Below 50% of MU's 104.42%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
9.43%
Below 50% of MU's 169.60%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
9.04%
Below 50% of MU's 82.01%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
520.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 520.16% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
196.58%
Dividend/share CAGR of 196.58% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
82.35%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 82.35% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
13.77%
AR growth well above MU's 3.11%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.83%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.18%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.77%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 5.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
3.16%
BV/share growth of 3.16% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
0.02%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.26%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
5.87%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.