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.
8.78%
Revenue growth similar to MU's 8.96%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
11.98%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
24.51%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
24.51%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
21.84%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
14.00%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
18.75%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.23%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 29.05%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.00%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 8.88%. 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.
-51.00%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 21.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-62.58%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
517.81%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
65.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 12.25%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
14.54%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 16.90%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
954.88%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-33.39%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 100.38%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-69.21%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 403.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
624.87%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
160.46%
Below 50% of MU's 349.39%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-17.86%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 245.85%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1627.00%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
115.78%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
36.06%
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.
-5.75%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
19.10%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.32%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.53%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 2.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
8.62%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.25%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
9.25%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 38.73%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.56%
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.