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.
1.97%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.02%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
9.76%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.76%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
4.97%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.26%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
1.75%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.63%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.89%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-107.79%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-148.16%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
352.22%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
53.06%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 10.50%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
13.23%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 16.40%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
-134.04%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-105.37%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 15.03%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-101.68%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 110.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
404.31%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
90.46%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 65.45%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-0.72%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 146.94%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1080.32%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
107.36%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
30.25%
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.
41.26%
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.
17.38%
Inventory growth well above MU's 6.89%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.05%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.61%
Under 50% of MU's 19.57%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.44%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.86%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.05%
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.