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.
7.30%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of AMD's 11.76%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
8.98%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AMD's 32.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
18.97%
EBIT growth above 1.5x AMD's 9.33%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
18.97%
Operating income growth above 1.5x AMD's 9.33%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
18.22%
Net income growth above 1.5x AMD's 1.80%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
16.67%
EPS growth above 1.5x AMD's 1.80%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
20.00%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x AMD's 1.80%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.35%
Share reduction while AMD is at 0.55%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.07%
Reduced diluted shares while AMD is at 0.55%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
98.97%
Dividend growth of 98.97% while AMD is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
62.09%
Positive OCF growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
93.07%
Positive FCF growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
42.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 24.21%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
109.40%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 42.13%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
29.69%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
58.50%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
206.80%
Positive OCF/share growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
117.86%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
161.17%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
748.99%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
69.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
174.56%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 14.65%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
33.59%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
13.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to AMD's 13.70%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
271.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 271.51% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
247.95%
Dividend/share CAGR of 247.95% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
281.54%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 281.54% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.03%
Our AR growth while AMD is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
1.06%
We show growth while AMD is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.96%
Asset growth well under 50% of AMD's 4.03%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.22%
Positive BV/share change while AMD is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-100.00%
We’re deleveraging while AMD stands at 44.16%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.18%
Our R&D shrinks while AMD invests at 9.95%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
4.69%
SG&A growth well above AMD's 8.96%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.