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.
0.17%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-2.91%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-56.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-56.82%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-80.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-78.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-78.33%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.46%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-2.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
16.92%
Dividend growth of 16.92% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-33.74%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-35.65%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
87.92%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 52.93%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
50.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 23.99%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
26.33%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 38.47%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
222.52%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
402.48%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-7.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 219.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-67.45%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
119.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-75.01%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MU is 66.74%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
207.45%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 12.61%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
60.50%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 38.23%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
7.51%
Below 50% of MU's 66.33%. 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.
12.97%
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.
0.68%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. MU's 7.10%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.28%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 1.77%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.78%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.50%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 3.22%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-5.60%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
7.97%
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.