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.
-10.86%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 10.83%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-11.74%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 20.40%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-24.42%
Negative EBIT growth while MU is at 23.78%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-24.42%
Negative operating income growth while MU is at 23.78%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-22.60%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 13.09%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-26.67%
Negative EPS growth while MU is at 10.80%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-20.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MU is at 10.05%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
7.05%
Share count expansion well above MU's 2.25%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-2.88%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 3.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.79%
Dividend growth of 0.79% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-60.89%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 13.52%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-65.97%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
109.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 201.68%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
117.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 231.59%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
65.88%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 40.37%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-15.88%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MU stands at 796.73%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
3285.57%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 1277.24%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
76.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 115.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
250.47%
Below 50% of MU's 795.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
772.59%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 970.51%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
250.74%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 151.93%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
167.49%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 104.42%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
48.77%
Below 50% of MU's 169.60%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
38.98%
Below 50% of MU's 82.01%. 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.
65.72%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 65.72% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
18.16%
AR growth well above MU's 3.11%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
3.40%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.18%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-4.38%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 5.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.59%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-21.52%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.31%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 0.22%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.11%
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.