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.
-19.03%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 0.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-70.57%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-218.87%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-218.87%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-202.45%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-203.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-206.90%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.98%
Share count expansion well above MU's 1.56%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-3.09%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.58%. 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.
736.35%
OCF growth above 1.5x MU's 10.52%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
85.32%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
544.50%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 27.27%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
24.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 23.35%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
-17.12%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU stands at 29.82%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
93.19%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 1559.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-35.81%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-90.09%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 124.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-947.31%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MU is at 149.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-266.67%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-177.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 107.24%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
1713.37%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
91.55%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
16.70%
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.
-25.25%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 2.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
11.87%
Inventory growth well above MU's 3.44%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.89%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-4.44%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.51%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-3.42%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
8.79%
SG&A growth well above MU's 4.29%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.