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.
-30.68%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-37.17%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-69.57%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-69.57%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-53.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-54.90%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-53.06%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.96%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.69%
Dividend growth of 7.69% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
84.39%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
106.23%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
304.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 185.71%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
79.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 11.45%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
39.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MU's 37.18%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
4094.80%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 377.79%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
109.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 60.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
55.53%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 125.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
438.98%
Net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 586.96%. Martin Whitman might question if the firm’s product or cost base lags behind.
260.26%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
142.43%
Below 50% of MU's 399.03%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
244.40%
Below 50% of MU's 488.91%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
95.68%
Below 50% of MU's 222.26%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
85.01%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 169.15%. 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.
89.29%
Dividend/share CAGR of 89.29% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
42.19%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 42.19% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-35.83%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
11.15%
Inventory growth well above MU's 4.34%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-2.67%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 5.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.40%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.10%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 19.16%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.94%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 2.81%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.10%
SG&A growth well above MU's 2.91%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.