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.
-2.62%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-4.50%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-10.66%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.66%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-11.50%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-11.76%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.17%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.16%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.16%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-36.82%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-40.92%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
220.12%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 308.22%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
208.17%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 35.19%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
141.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 84.95%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
931.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 603.93%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
812.65%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 135.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
399.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 318.67%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
933.08%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 249.76% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1000.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 110.74%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
3674.18%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 1652.21%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
202.21%
Below 50% of MU's 406.41%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
103.28%
Below 50% of MU's 254.28%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
87.30%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 162.12%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
102.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 102.46% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
53.03%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 53.03% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
36.23%
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.
36.76%
Inventory growth well above MU's 13.26%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
12.41%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 6.49%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
13.78%
BV/share growth of 13.78% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
0.05%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 50.94%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
7.20%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.60%
SG&A growth of 2.60% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.