205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
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.
5.20%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AMD's 0.45%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
-6.44%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-6.41%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-6.41%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
0.69%
Positive net income growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-5.26%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-5.26%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.57%
Share reduction more than 1.5x AMD's 28.96%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.27%
Reduced diluted shares while AMD is at 28.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
2.54%
Dividend growth of 2.54% while AMD is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.31%
OCF growth under 50% of AMD's 20.77%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-94.07%
Negative FCF growth while AMD is at 96.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
137.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 66.32%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
76.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 24.56%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
71.38%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AMD is at 44.32%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
42.84%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
665.18%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 309.93% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
548.82%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 172.19%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
257.19%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
128.96%
Equity/share CAGR of 128.96% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
49.99%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of AMD's 84.34%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
98.79%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 33.42%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
4.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 4.56% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
23.92%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while AMD is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
29.96%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while AMD cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-5.71%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
6.77%
Inventory growth well above AMD's 1.01%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.61%
Asset growth above 1.5x AMD's 2.15%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.79%
Positive BV/share change while AMD is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.21%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while AMD invests at 3.99%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
40.00%
We expand SG&A while AMD cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.