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.
8.44%
Positive revenue growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.64%
Positive gross profit growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-37.10%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.10%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-46.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-45.83%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-46.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.08%
Slight or no buybacks while MU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.31%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.08%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.64%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-42.93%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-50.36%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
780.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 107.15%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
304.32%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
261.71%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
18577.20%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 271.61%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
480.03%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
132.93%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
2531.36%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.77% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
201.56%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
297.88%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
503.38%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MU's 513.93%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
305.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 127.72%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
162.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 37.19%. 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.
15.24%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.24% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.12%
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.
16.95%
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.
21.42%
Inventory growth well above MU's 25.45%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.32%
Similar asset growth to MU's 2.40%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
-1.18%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.10%
Debt shrinking faster vs. MU's 44.89%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
10.37%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. MU's 1.19%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.15%
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.