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.
-3.62%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 8.19%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-2.43%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 18.27%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-7.22%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 31.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-7.22%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 31.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-7.08%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-7.69%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.76%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.65%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.20%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.68%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-62.31%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 18.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-63.52%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 345.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
107.11%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 119.07%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
61.04%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 107.87%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
21.95%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 100.69%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
117.69%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 229.84%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
3.07%
Below 50% of MU's 286.25%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-6.70%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 261.43%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
466.73%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 290.93% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
165.77%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 288.88%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
7.41%
Below 50% of MU's 591.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
240.03%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 21.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
74.30%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MU's 77.80%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
28.58%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MU's 29.50%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
-7.02%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
1.42%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-5.33%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 0.20%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.92%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.44%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.71%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 5.03%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.51%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 7.22%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.