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.
5.86%
Revenue growth under 50% of AMD's 11.89%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.66%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AMD's 16.30%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
7.80%
EBIT growth below 50% of AMD's 19.90%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
7.80%
Operating income growth under 50% of AMD's 22.80%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.06%
Net income growth above 1.5x AMD's 5.53%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
9.26%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x AMD's 6.58%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
9.43%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x AMD's 6.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.16%
Slight or no buybacks while AMD is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.16%
Slight or no buyback while AMD is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while AMD stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
61.61%
Positive OCF growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
121.34%
Positive FCF growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
432.02%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 70.02%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
210.95%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AMD's 221.10%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
68.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AMD's 176.97%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
348.22%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 161.87%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
252.22%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AMD's 221.76%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
49.01%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AMD's 856.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
700.06%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 427.83% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
512.90%
Below 50% of AMD's 1505.41%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
27.59%
Below 50% of AMD's 1987.36%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
400.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 180.90%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
229.15%
Below 50% of AMD's 1226.20%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
121.37%
Below 50% of AMD's 382.25%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
41.32%
Dividend/share CAGR of 41.32% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
6.51%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 6.51% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-4.60%
Firm’s AR is declining while AMD shows 21.49%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
22.14%
Inventory growth well above AMD's 2.79%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
7.11%
Asset growth at 50-75% of AMD's 11.35%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
9.99%
BV/share growth above 1.5x AMD's 5.08%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
0.42%
Debt shrinking faster vs. AMD's 13.57%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
9.55%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AMD's 6.01%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-2.33%
We cut SG&A while AMD invests at 20.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.