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.
38.05%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 33.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
33.90%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 160.59%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-31.92%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 510.20%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-31.92%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 510.20%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-36.35%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 331.82%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-34.78%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 340.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-36.76%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 330.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.87%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.36%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.28%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 18.52%. 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.
816.19%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
293.17%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
505.77%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
28.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 5.39%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-6.24%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 3.07%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
2606.74%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
111.21%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
171.41%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-2169.33%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-961.70%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MU is 0.53%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-313.69%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 60.77%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1857.62%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
95.08%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
38.73%
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.
-4.41%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 36.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-39.15%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 5.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.13%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 2.37%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.00%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 6.41%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.10%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
42.51%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
37.51%
SG&A growth well above MU's 18.29%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.