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.
-5.68%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.25%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-16.28%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.24%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-14.95%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-13.75%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.88%
Reduced diluted shares while AMD is at 0.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.31%
Dividend reduction while AMD stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-61.75%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-66.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
42.07%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
2.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
14.67%
Positive 3Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
54.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while AMD is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
22.90%
Below 50% of AMD's 76.88%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
67.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to AMD's 73.93%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
91.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
23.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
116.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AMD's 28.18%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
37.06%
Positive growth while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
7.25%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while AMD is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-1.77%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
1156.44%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1156.44% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
190.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 190.22% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
81.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 81.56% while AMD is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
8.93%
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.
6.74%
We show growth while AMD is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-3.35%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-1.19%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.05%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
5.23%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. AMD's 5.68%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
8.89%
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.