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.
9.16%
Positive revenue growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.87%
Positive gross profit growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
9.29%
Positive EBIT growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.29%
Positive operating income growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
3.79%
Positive net income growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
4.21%
Positive EPS growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
3.19%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.24%
Slight or no buybacks while AMD is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.24%
Slight or no buyback while AMD is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.24%
Dividend reduction while AMD stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.36%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-48.06%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
547.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 102.30%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
205.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 121.16%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
117.67%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AMD's 109.89%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
503.88%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 285.48%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
185.61%
Below 50% of AMD's 820.43%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
204.05%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AMD's 180.12%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
1243.02%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 119.39% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
291.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
95.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
481.97%
Below 50% of AMD's 2444.01%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
284.93%
Below 50% of AMD's 6502.89%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
144.83%
Below 50% of AMD's 1602.58%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
41.17%
Dividend/share CAGR of 41.17% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
7.12%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 7.12% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
10.26%
AR growth well above AMD's 7.08%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
5.63%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. AMD's 27.23%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
5.13%
Asset growth above 1.5x AMD's 0.46%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
12.27%
BV/share growth above 1.5x AMD's 1.35%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-7.68%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
12.69%
We increase R&D while AMD cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.89%
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.