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.
8.44%
Positive revenue growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.64%
Positive gross profit growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-37.10%
Negative EBIT growth while AMD is at 12.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-37.10%
Negative operating income growth while AMD is at 2.68%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-46.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-45.83%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-46.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.08%
Slight or no buybacks while AMD is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.31%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.08%
Dividend reduction while AMD stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.93%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-50.36%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
780.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 138.60%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
304.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 113.07%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
261.71%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 131.81%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
18577.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 252.06%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
480.03%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to AMD's 470.48%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
132.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AMD's 678.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2531.36%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 53.83% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
201.56%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
297.88%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
503.38%
Below 50% of AMD's 6291.49%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
305.59%
Below 50% of AMD's 4914.83%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
162.79%
Below 50% of AMD's 1292.88%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.24%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.24% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.12%
Negative near-term dividend growth while AMD invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
16.95%
Our AR growth while AMD is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
21.42%
Inventory growth well above AMD's 12.30%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.32%
Asset growth above 1.5x AMD's 0.08%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-1.18%
We have a declining book value while AMD shows 4.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.10%
We have some new debt while AMD reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
10.37%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AMD's 3.29%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.15%
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.