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.
14.76%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
14.50%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
13.53%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
13.53%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
23.16%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-41.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-40.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
103.97%
Share count expansion well above MU's 2.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
104.39%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
126.49%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
418.36%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-5.67%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 488.74%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-5.67%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-5.67%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 0.78%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
414.93%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.81%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
414.93%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
414.93%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 133.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
45.15%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
45.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
45.15%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
7.87%
Below 50% of MU's 722.29%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
7.87%
Below 50% of MU's 124.20%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.87%
Below 50% of MU's 85.51%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
18.19%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
23.34%
Inventory growth well above MU's 11.17%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
13.26%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-37.80%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-28.87%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
12.96%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
20.55%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.