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.
-6.63%
Negative revenue growth while MU stands at 6.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.29%
Negative gross profit growth while MU is at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-5.86%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-6.38%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-0.12%
Negative net income growth while MU stands at 42.68%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.26%
Share reduction while MU is at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.02%
Reduced diluted shares while MU is at 1.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
13.02%
Dividend growth of 13.02% while MU is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-8.03%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-10.39%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
70.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 133.44%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
29.09%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 156.35%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
3.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 83.50%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
60.55%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of MU's 113.06%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
50.79%
Below 50% of MU's 197.93%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
42.19%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MU's 253.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
177.33%
Below 50% of MU's 707.76%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
49.47%
Below 50% of MU's 1131.87%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
200.49%
Below 50% of MU's 891.39%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
31.01%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MU's 25.98%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
26.82%
Below 50% of MU's 82.74%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
2.97%
Below 50% of MU's 18.14%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
1232.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1232.73% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
183.53%
Dividend/share CAGR of 183.53% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
100.21%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 100.21% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-15.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while MU shows 7.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
1.88%
We show growth while MU is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.99%
Negative asset growth while MU invests at 9.77%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
0.49%
BV/share growth of 0.49% while MU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.06%
We’re deleveraging while MU stands at 16.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.33%
Our R&D shrinks while MU invests at 2.58%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-7.34%
We cut SG&A while MU invests at 3.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.