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.
-46.40%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 17.72%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-61.49%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 58.88%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-408.27%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 80.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-408.27%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 80.08%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-339.14%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 69.66%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-346.43%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 72.22%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-342.86%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 72.22%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-1.13%
Share reduction while MU is at 3.69%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-3.67%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 3.81%. 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.
-146.15%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 136.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
4.83%
FCF growth under 50% of MU's 254.02%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
214.06%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-8.16%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-21.22%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-413.82%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-1784.49%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-109.14%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-947.67%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-650.66%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-256.25%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
1510.75%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
105.29%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
70.43%
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.
-47.61%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 6.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.64%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-8.17%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.61%
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.
-0.27%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-4.33%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 2.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.