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.
2.05%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
3.38%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.35%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.35%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
11.66%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
10.00%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
12.82%
Diluted EPS growth of 12.82% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.66%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.29%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.98%
Dividend growth of 0.98% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
105.33%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
134.07%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
115.98%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 74.73%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
30.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 55.66%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
47.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 75.14%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
336.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 106.57%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
555.72%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 3.09%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
21.18%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 118.59%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
293.57%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 567.13%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
51.11%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to MU's 48.45%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
87.03%
Below 50% of MU's 285.10%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
266.85%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 28.45%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
70.01%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MU's 65.34%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
19.74%
Below 50% of MU's 52.58%. 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.
-15.87%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
18.33%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
4.58%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.77%
BV/share growth of 5.77% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
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.
2.40%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.50%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 0.59%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.