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.
0.84%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
1.17%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-4.84%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-4.84%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-4.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-2.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-2.63%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.66%
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.
-1.22%
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.
-66.26%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-110.46%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
461.77%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
113.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 72.59%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
36.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 20.49%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
428.36%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-76.31%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 375.77%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-17.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 3.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
725.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
109.22%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
228.36%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1178.18%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 72.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
153.95%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
51.87%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 27.69%. 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.
17.47%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
9.32%
Inventory growth well above MU's 16.07%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.04%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 2.29%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.18%
Similar to MU's 2.41%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.96%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 32.79%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
5.16%
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.