PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 13.44%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
9.32%
Gross profit growth under 50% of MU's 1244.83%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
43.39%
EBIT growth above 1.5x MU's 23.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
33.50%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 23.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
15.24%
Net income growth comparable to MU's 16.12%. Walter Schloss might see both following similar market or cost trajectories.
20.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 16.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
20.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x MU's 16.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
45.37%
Share count expansion well above MU's 0.40%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
42.90%
Diluted share count expanding well above MU's 3.00%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-33.23%
Dividend reduction while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-24.69%
Negative OCF growth while MU is at 5069.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-19.83%
Negative FCF growth while MU is at 57.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-33.03%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while MU stands at 330.52%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-57.43%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MU stands at 97.36%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-63.08%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-37.86%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-46.80%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
12.76%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 12.76% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
-27.94%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-56.65%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
115.41%
Below 50% of MU's 559.79%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
42.97%
Below 50% of MU's 267.56%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.40%
Below 50% of MU's 45.09%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
29.25%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.25% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
-1.57%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while MU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-33.25%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-2.35%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 23.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
8.42%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.96%
Positive asset growth while MU is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-25.51%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-1.07%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 5.48%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.44%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 8.46%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
5.47%
We expand SG&A while MU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.