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.
8.60%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MU's 4.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
11.73%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
57.04%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 11.81%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
57.04%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 11.81%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
50.26%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.50%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
46.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
9.35%
Share count expansion well above MU's 1.62%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.42%
Diluted share change of 1.42% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
168.00%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
185.90%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
298.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 15.56%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
152.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 137.18%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
21.74%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 30.74%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
3335.25%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 78.19%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
1162.24%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 588.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
63.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 149.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
442.52%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 101.94% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
174.65%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 109.18%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
73.45%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MU's 143.75%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
845.10%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 91.22%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
212.61%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
40.83%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 38.11%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-9.54%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 18.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-10.55%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 20.42%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
6.08%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 18.64%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.21%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 16.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.12%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-8.02%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 26.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.