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.
8.02%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 52.37%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
5.99%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 167.26%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
44.10%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MU's 86.95%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
44.10%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MU's 86.95%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
29.80%
Net income growth under 50% of MU's 88.57%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
25.00%
EPS growth under 50% of MU's 88.50%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
23.08%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MU's 88.50%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
2.33%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.22%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
2.77%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.22%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
62.89%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
770.89%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
162.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 219.39%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
162.62%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
162.62%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1486.11%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
1486.11%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
1486.11%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
294.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
294.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
294.43%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
403.32%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 769.71%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
403.32%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 84.64%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
403.32%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 53.89%. 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.
30.26%
AR growth well above MU's 55.97%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.27%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 21.42%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
9.93%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 2.17%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
11.28%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.65%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
8.31%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.48%
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.