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.
-6.23%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-7.26%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-9.56%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.12%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-12.95%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.96%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.15%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.11%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.07%
Dividend growth under 50% of MU's 0.64%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-43.19%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-83.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
85.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 107.15%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
25.26%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
35.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
293.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MU's 271.61%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
13.06%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
39.92%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
475.86%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.77% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
35.51%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
49.34%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
69.87%
Below 50% of MU's 513.93%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
55.24%
Below 50% of MU's 127.72%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
102.31%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.19%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
491.84%
Dividend/share CAGR of 491.84% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
99.55%
Dividend/share CAGR of 99.55% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
37.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 37.31% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-0.95%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
19.26%
Inventory growth well above MU's 25.45%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
7.40%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 2.40%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.45%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
11.53%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 44.89%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
4.84%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 1.19%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
10.49%
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.