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.
-26.70%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 14.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-52.07%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-94.74%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-94.74%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-93.69%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-93.48%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-92.31%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
1.07%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.33%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-7.56%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-98.63%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-198.48%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 14.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
301.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 119.87%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
301.46%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
301.46%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
114.83%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
114.83%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 128.25%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
114.83%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-42.53%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-42.53%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-42.53%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
684.85%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 390.10%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
684.85%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 28.69%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
684.85%
Positive short-term equity growth while MU is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-12.14%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 8.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
12.37%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
0.96%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.64%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.51%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 161.38%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
9.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 12.69%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-4.20%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.