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.
6.98%
Revenue growth under 50% of AMD's 18.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
11.21%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AMD's 45.12%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
25.22%
EBIT growth below 50% of AMD's 60.39%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
25.22%
Operating income growth under 50% of AMD's 50.55%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
27.21%
Net income growth at 75-90% of AMD's 34.00%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
30.95%
EPS growth at 75-90% of AMD's 34.86%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
28.57%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of AMD's 34.86%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-1.39%
Share reduction while AMD is at 0.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.43%
Reduced diluted shares while AMD is at 0.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.53%
Dividend growth of 0.53% while AMD is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
70.49%
OCF growth at 50-75% of AMD's 135.12%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
90.47%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x AMD's 81.32%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
59.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AMD's 39.95%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
96.53%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to AMD's 98.69%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
37.60%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
205.28%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AMD's 384.28%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
226.83%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to AMD's 247.39%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
98.43%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-50.56%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
397.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 3.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
68.28%
Positive short-term CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
92.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 3.28%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
21.10%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
5.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 2.87%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
288.56%
Dividend/share CAGR of 288.56% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
278.60%
Dividend/share CAGR of 278.60% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
286.61%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 286.61% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
6.64%
AR growth well above AMD's 5.25%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
1.83%
We show growth while AMD is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-2.11%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.74%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.63%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
1.18%
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.