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.
0.00%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
2.44%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
7.81%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.81%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-6.26%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-3.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-8.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.16%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.37%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.03%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
1.66%
Dividend growth of 1.66% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-36.25%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-39.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
116.05%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 91.92%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
39.07%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 67.66%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
16.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 84.43%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
397.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 144.40%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-30.22%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is at 22.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
26.45%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 99.44%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2133.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 377.31% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
219.01%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 101.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-9.05%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 481.56%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
251.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 26.70%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
87.57%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 75.06%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
25.69%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 41.36%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
18.46%
AR growth well above MU's 3.68%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-1.49%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
1.01%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 5.66%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
3.47%
BV/share growth of 3.47% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
0.44%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 16.13%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.86%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 0.80%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
0.08%
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.