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.
14.83%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 12.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify whether cost discipline or revenue gains drive the outperformance.
15.79%
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.
-225.42%
Negative yoy deferred tax while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
8.11%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
67.69%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
28.51%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. WLDS's 393.62%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-533.33%
Negative yoy inventory while WLDS is 55.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
116.54%
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.
-10.98%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -148.32%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
600.00%
Well above WLDS's 263.93%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
4.77%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
38.82%
Lower CapEx growth vs. WLDS's 80.56%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-369.00%
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.
-76.50%
Both yoy lines are negative, with WLDS at -119.06%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-186.36%
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.
-613.94%
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.
-56.76%
Negative yoy issuance while WLDS is 2021.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.