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.
16.91%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 12.70%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
-17.38%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 44.92%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
52.33%
EBIT growth below 50% of MU's 106.47%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
52.33%
Operating income growth under 50% of MU's 106.47%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
47.70%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MU's 78.92%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
48.39%
EPS growth at 50-75% of MU's 79.17%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
48.39%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MU's 69.57%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
0.80%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.15%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.80%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.46%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.93%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 146.63%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-3.21%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 169.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
509.80%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
55.35%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 14.47%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
8.55%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 24.63%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
2607.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 225.08%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
526.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 99.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
663.79%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 154.06%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-1062.70%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MU is at 44.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-1976.89%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MU is 136.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-216.66%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 736.58%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1568.61%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
87.24%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
30.55%
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.
15.63%
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.
-14.68%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 3.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.77%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 1.93%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-3.85%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 4.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-1.15%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 8.11%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-36.10%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 8.03%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-37.77%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 3.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.