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.
13.15%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
14.95%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
29.79%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
29.79%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
31.23%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.51%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
31.03%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.32%
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%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.32%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-9.34%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 1.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-11.66%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
463.61%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 222.57%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
275.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 79.96%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
72.26%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
942.36%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 754.89%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
424.44%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 221.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
26.56%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1254.35%
Similar net income/share CAGR to MU's 1181.52%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
743.56%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 1090.67%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
49.99%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
421.55%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MU's 386.80%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
286.90%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 246.32%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
137.40%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.24%. 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.
38.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 38.08% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
6.16%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 6.16% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
24.50%
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.
9.09%
Inventory growth well above MU's 7.58%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.96%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 4.07%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
10.78%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 4.87%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.86%
Debt growth far above MU's 3.64%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
0.52%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 0.99%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
3.38%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 9.75%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.