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.
13.18%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
15.77%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
222.37%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
222.37%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
846.15%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
746.15%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
746.15%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.18%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.62%
Diluted share change of 1.62% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-0.18%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
56.44%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
71.22%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
110.53%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 52.84%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
64.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 32.19%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
24.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 25.04%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
185.38%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
28.02%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
61.34%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
254.82%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
208.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
35.10%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
211.42%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 19.02%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
64.12%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 38.54%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
8.56%
Below 50% of MU's 66.34%. 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.
4.28%
AR growth well above MU's 4.49%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.63%
Inventory is declining while MU stands at 11.96%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.79%
Asset growth well under 50% of MU's 8.79%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
6.49%
BV/share growth of 6.49% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
0.43%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 25.76%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
2.81%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.01%
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.