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.
25.52%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MU's 8.02%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
13.52%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-33.30%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-33.30%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-32.17%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-32.43%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-32.43%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.33%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.45%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.64%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 0.79%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
0.69%
Dividend growth of 0.69% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
72.39%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 55.41%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
79.05%
FCF growth 75-90% of MU's 105.06%. Bill Ackman might push for improved capital allocation or operational changes to match the competitor.
343.12%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 143.76%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
194.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 96.60%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
68.02%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
4142.41%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 233.37%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
744.30%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 270.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
115.41%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
510.29%
Net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 638.87%. Bill Ackman would press for strategic moves to boost long-term earnings.
2001.04%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 675.03%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
3.40%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
368.66%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 323.94%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
191.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with MU's 206.70%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
125.76%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 63.33%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
64.05%
Dividend/share CAGR of 64.05% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
14.22%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 14.22% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.28%
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.
24.20%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
8.28%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 0.83%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.88%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 1.44%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.54%
We have some new debt while MU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
35.65%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
113.99%
SG&A growth of 113.99% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.