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.
7.60%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
7.95%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
11.19%
Positive EBIT growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
11.19%
Positive operating income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
21.88%
Positive net income growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
21.21%
Positive EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
23.71%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.20%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.28%
Slight or no buyback while MU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-0.20%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 15.07%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
99.67%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
112.63%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
683.17%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 212.28%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
210.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 9.41%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
237.21%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.28%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
621.63%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MU's 674.53%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
271.61%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 19.21%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
228.58%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 70.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2428.00%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 666.59% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
305.01%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
415.25%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 167.65%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
526.98%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MU's 498.10%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
308.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 170.95%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
177.13%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 39.98%. 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.
16.24%
Dividend/share CAGR of 16.24% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.73%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MU invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
17.60%
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.
16.66%
Inventory growth well above MU's 18.37%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
8.75%
Asset growth above 1.5x MU's 1.51%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
11.60%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MU's 1.29%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.49%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 8.54%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
1.08%
SG&A declining or stable vs. MU's 6.06%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.