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.
11.11%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.33%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
30.72%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
30.72%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
35.16%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
37.93%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
41.82%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.87%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.17%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.02%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
123.95%
OCF growth above 1.5x MU's 6.71%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
138.47%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 51.01%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
116.11%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MU's 120.79%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
36.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 38.96%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
27.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 63.23%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
45077.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 141.75%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
53.55%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 23.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-2.23%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 79.06%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
507.76%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 331.91% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
61.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
7.52%
Below 50% of MU's 241.18%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
244.94%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 29.94%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
74.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 33.85%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
17.27%
Below 50% of MU's 46.75%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
19.97%
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.
5.33%
Inventory growth well above MU's 0.17%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.69%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 5.53%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.47%
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%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 12.26%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
0.88%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MU's 7.12%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
3.90%
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.