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.
18.86%
Positive revenue growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
21.26%
Positive gross profit growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
70.38%
Positive EBIT growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
70.38%
Positive operating income growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
44.48%
Positive net income growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
45.61%
Positive EPS growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
43.86%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.24%
Share reduction more than 1.5x AMD's 8.73%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.52%
Diluted share count expanding well above AMD's 0.68%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
0.78%
Dividend growth of 0.78% while AMD is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
29.44%
OCF growth at 75-90% of AMD's 36.75%. Bill Ackman would demand better working capital management or cost discipline.
53.05%
FCF growth similar to AMD's 56.61%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
652.53%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 48.64%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
120.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AMD's 291.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
132.18%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 11.51%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1555.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 196.90%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
97.70%
Below 50% of AMD's 322.73%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
218.43%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2520.23%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 333.33% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
61.17%
Below 50% of AMD's 600.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
121.53%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
407.76%
Below 50% of AMD's 4072.55%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
211.82%
Below 50% of AMD's 2761.98%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
86.13%
Below 50% of AMD's 509.00%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
113.76%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.76% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
6.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 6.77% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
0.45%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 0.45% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.61%
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.
-10.62%
Inventory is declining while AMD stands at 6.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
7.96%
Asset growth above 1.5x AMD's 0.01%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
10.68%
Positive BV/share change while AMD is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.90%
We have some new debt while AMD reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.94%
Our R&D shrinks while AMD invests at 0.93%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
1.28%
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.