PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-17.51%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
11.27%
Some D&A expansion while WLDS is negative at -1.85%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
133.33%
Deferred tax of 133.33% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
307.95%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-561.01%
AR is negative yoy while WLDS is 393.62%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
20.70%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. WLDS's 55.38%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
381.34%
AP growth well above WLDS's 92.80%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
76.61%
Some yoy usage while WLDS is negative at -148.32%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-131.11%
Negative yoy while WLDS is 263.93%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
70.45%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-48.56%
Negative yoy CapEx while WLDS is 80.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
36.23%
Purchases growth of 36.23% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
358.29%
We have some liquidation growth while WLDS is negative at -119.06%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
417.00%
Growth of 417.00% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
127.44%
We have mild expansions while WLDS is negative at -119.41%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
651.83%
Lower share issuance yoy vs. WLDS's 2021.35%, implying less dilution. David Dodd would confirm the firm still has enough capital for expansions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.