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.
2.02%
Revenue growth under 50% of MU's 6.88%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
20.65%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of MU's 34.88%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
108.99%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 6.00%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
108.99%
Operating income growth above 1.5x MU's 6.00%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
107.94%
Net income growth above 1.5x MU's 24.42%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
111.11%
EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 24.28%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
111.11%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x MU's 24.28%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.77%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.88%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.24%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
473.72%
OCF growth at 50-75% of MU's 937.50%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
1360.87%
FCF growth above 1.5x MU's 21.15%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
450.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 33.09%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
104.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
93.61%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
402.03%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
62.92%
Positive OCF/share growth while MU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
52.52%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
718.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
24.42%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
47.88%
Positive short-term CAGR while MU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
360.89%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with MU's 355.37%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
191.02%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 44.60%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
79.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 14.79%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
110.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 110.52% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
5.94%
Dividend/share CAGR of 5.94% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.65%
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.
-22.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 0.58%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
15.83%
Inventory growth well above MU's 1.81%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.71%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.32%
Positive BV/share change while MU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
8.26%
Debt growth far above MU's 0.61%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
0.36%
We increase R&D while MU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.95%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.