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.
-2.87%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 6.48%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
3.04%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MU's 1.21%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
55.04%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 14.31%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
55.04%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 14.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
280.21%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 2.86%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
333.33%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
333.33%
Diluted EPS growth of 333.33% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.68%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
88.98%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 61.37%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
58.42%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 633.81%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
241.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 45.75%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
241.96%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
116.71%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 110.92%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-116.65%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 49.51%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-116.65%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 11.14%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-106.12%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 730.47%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
53.94%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
53.94%
Below 50% of MU's 506.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-22.07%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 113.84%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
684.61%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 222.41%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
684.61%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 7.63%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
159.52%
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.
24.58%
AR growth well above MU's 0.52%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-10.19%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 8.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.07%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.60%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
4.11%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-42.16%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.45%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 9.81%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
0.43%
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.