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.
-11.53%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 1.60%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
8.99%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 44.61%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
20.44%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MU's 32.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
20.44%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MU's 32.00%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
3.66%
Net income growth under 50% of MU's 18.62%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
3.85%
EPS growth under 50% of MU's 18.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.85%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MU's 18.78%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.48%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.68%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.27%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.48%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while MU cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-69.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-116.49%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 17.45%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
393.83%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 51.51%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
118.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
93.37%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
116.55%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-67.09%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-76.51%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
226.07%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-21.17%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-25.67%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
353.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 479.96%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
226.49%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 67.90%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
87.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 21.92%. 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.
15.64%
Dividend/share CAGR of 15.64% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
1.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 1.31% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-7.69%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 6.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
14.53%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.34%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-6.87%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-10.06%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-6.35%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 7.48%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.63%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
6.59%
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.