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.
5.26%
Net income growth under 50% of WLDS's 12.85%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
3.57%
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.
500.00%
Deferred tax of 500.00% 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.
-1916.67%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -210.16%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-356.25%
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.
75.00%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
441.38%
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.
-566.67%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -148.32%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
110.00%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. WLDS's 263.93%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-95.24%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-19.44%
Negative yoy CapEx while WLDS is 80.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-100.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-9.62%
Negative yoy purchasing while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-21.80%
Both yoy lines are negative, with WLDS at -119.06%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-520.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-97.84%
Both yoy lines negative, with WLDS at -119.41%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
227.27%
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.