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
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.
-3.62%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.43%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-7.22%
Negative EBIT growth while AMD is at 57.98%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-7.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-7.08%
Negative net income growth while AMD stands at 50.55%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-7.69%
Negative EPS growth while AMD is at 51.06%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-4.76%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AMD is at 51.06%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.65%
Share reduction while AMD is at 1.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.20%
Reduced diluted shares while AMD is at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.68%
Dividend reduction while AMD stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.31%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-63.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
107.11%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
61.04%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
21.95%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
117.69%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
3.07%
Positive OCF/share growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-6.70%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
466.73%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
165.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
7.41%
Below 50% of AMD's 71.18%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
240.03%
Positive growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
74.30%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
28.58%
Positive short-term equity growth while AMD is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.02%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
1.42%
Inventory growth well above AMD's 0.44%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-5.33%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.92%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.44%
Debt shrinking faster vs. AMD's 2.53%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-0.71%
Our R&D shrinks while AMD invests at 1.68%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.51%
We expand SG&A while AMD cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.