NVIDIA Corporation (NVDA)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x MU's 0.35%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.

Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.

10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 123.68%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.

5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 59.96%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.

Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.

10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 134.47%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.

5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 63.02%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.

Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.

Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 352.04%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.

5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 261.84%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.

Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.

3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 80.18%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.

Dividend/share CAGR of 90.49% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.

3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.23% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.

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.

We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.

Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 0.02%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.

BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 1.97%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.

We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.

Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 2.70%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.

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.