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.
12.91%
Revenue growth similar to MU's 13.30%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
16.69%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 68.66%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
91.72%
EBIT growth similar to MU's 85.35%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
91.72%
Operating income growth similar to MU's 85.35%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
96.98%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
92.00%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
92.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.52%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.23%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-0.10%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.23%. 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.
2281.65%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
464.38%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 53.03%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
80.39%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 58.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
-1.28%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MU stands at 16.25%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
18.76%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
22097.04%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 446.28%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-46.36%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
31.30%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1572.42%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 72.40% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-39.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MU is 72.02%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
199.84%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
272.06%
Positive growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
74.22%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
75.00%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 7.68%. 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.
8.31%
AR growth well above MU's 7.64%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
12.98%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
3.22%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.34%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.85%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 6.29%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.95%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
12.44%
SG&A growth well above MU's 3.36%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.