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.
-2.97%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.44%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-40.46%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-40.46%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-47.91%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-47.92%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-47.92%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.71%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.14%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.84%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.06%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-102.24%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-110.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
16.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 59.82%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-3.71%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
22.63%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-113.86%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 41.32%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-102.64%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-105.71%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-46.70%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while MU is at 48.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-59.84%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MU is 20.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
126.44%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
262.34%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
79.80%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
62.83%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 20.03%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
22.32%
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.
0.71%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.05%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.80%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.69%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.84%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 5.30%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.39%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.75%
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.