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.
10.36%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MU's 1.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
17.05%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MU's 9.52%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
41.52%
EBIT growth 50-75% of MU's 57.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
42.32%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of MU's 57.71%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
40.25%
Net income growth under 50% of MU's 104.19%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
43.18%
EPS growth under 50% of MU's 102.94%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
40.91%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of MU's 103.33%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.93%
Share reduction while MU is at 1.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.91%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 0.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
0.31%
Dividend growth of 0.31% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
67.75%
Positive OCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
80.52%
Positive FCF growth while MU is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
67.30%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 151.47%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
58.50%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 201.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
2.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 69.62%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
152.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 264.97%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
64.60%
Below 50% of MU's 199.36%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
32.57%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 60.16%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
155.09%
Below 50% of MU's 1667.37%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
210.77%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 171.07%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
9.70%
Below 50% of MU's 846.41%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
38.59%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 4.22%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
34.39%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of MU's 42.94%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
3.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MU's 2.27%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1337.84%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1337.84% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
174.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 174.90% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
132.42%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 132.42% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
12.69%
Our AR growth while MU is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
1.75%
Inventory growth well above MU's 0.12%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-5.94%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 4.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.53%
We have a declining book value while MU shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-17.76%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 14.39%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-4.64%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 7.50%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-1.46%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 0.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.