PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
114.79%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MU's 187.73%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
-25.99%
Negative yoy D&A while MU is 0.52%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
33.75%
Deferred tax of 33.75% while MU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
2.41%
SBC growth while MU is negative at -1.03%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-368.75%
Both reduce yoy usage, with MU at -137.22%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-1152.27%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with MU at -409.57%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-272.22%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with MU at -65.93%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
2912.50%
AP growth of 2912.50% while MU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
-315.06%
Both reduce yoy usage, with MU at -280.07%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
122.22%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. MU's 8000.00%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-18.38%
Negative yoy CFO while MU is 16.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-117.97%
Negative yoy CapEx while MU is 25.15%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
81.04%
Acquisition growth of 81.04% while MU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
38.72%
Some yoy expansion while MU is negative at -64.27%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
239.22%
We have some liquidation growth while MU is negative at -13.57%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
97.15%
Growth well above MU's 19.86%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
85.17%
Investing outflow well above MU's 18.58%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
100.00%
We repay more while MU is negative at -6431.58%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.