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.
10.12%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.17%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
6.58%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
6.58%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
10.66%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-11.11%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
6.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
22.61%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.20%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.61%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.23%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-92.82%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
57.80%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 148.90%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
57.80%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
57.80%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
172.15%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
172.15%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
172.15%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
97.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
97.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
97.53%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
202.33%
Below 50% of MU's 825.10%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
202.33%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 102.65%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
202.33%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 87.33%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
0.61%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. MU's 16.62%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-3.53%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
3.36%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-8.46%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.12%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
20.07%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
13.57%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 95.97%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.