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.
1.86%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-2.73%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-8.56%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-8.56%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
11.72%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
13.33%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
11.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.33%
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.
-0.33%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-46.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-57.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
216.43%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to MU's 218.63%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
187.87%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 16.11%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
116.94%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 53.08%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
911.25%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 1221.42%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
186.18%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 79.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
69.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 545.71%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1678.73%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 313.19% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
888.08%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 0.63%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
344.99%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of MU's 461.99%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
240.19%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 453.51%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
109.17%
Below 50% of MU's 243.14%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
88.86%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 168.55%. 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.
100.01%
Dividend/share CAGR of 100.01% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
52.81%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 52.81% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
33.51%
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.
30.00%
Inventory growth well above MU's 11.73%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.02%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
7.38%
BV/share growth of 7.38% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.55%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.13%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 0.83%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.86%
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.