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.
0.56%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 11.38%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
145.36%
Gross profit growth similar to MU's 140.07%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
136.55%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 65.25%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
136.55%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 65.25%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
151.06%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 61.38%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
151.85%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 62.89%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
151.85%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 62.89%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-2.09%
Share reduction while MU is at 5.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
1.64%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 5.09%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-46.88%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-340.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
500.98%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
64.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
44.33%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
165.97%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
544.73%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-52.03%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
278.30%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
765.55%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-11.23%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
1541.41%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
119.46%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
72.89%
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.
-10.54%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 14.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
21.22%
Inventory growth well above MU's 16.30%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-7.86%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.61%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.26%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-2.22%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.