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.
85.24%
Net income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 12.85%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
12.12%
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.
149.32%
Deferred tax of 149.32% 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.
15.00%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
12.11%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-126.38%
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.
42.11%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-43.56%
Negative yoy AP while WLDS is 92.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
210.96%
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.
-50.00%
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.
71.85%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-77.24%
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.
10.23%
Purchases growth of 10.23% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
412.58%
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.
178.95%
Growth of 178.95% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
54.78%
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.
215.63%
Lower share issuance yoy vs. WLDS's 2021.35%, implying less dilution. David Dodd would confirm the firm still has enough capital for expansions.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.