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.
102.88%
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.
6.09%
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.
233.65%
Deferred tax of 233.65% 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.
13.89%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
13.50%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
140.15%
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.
-61.33%
Negative yoy inventory while WLDS is 55.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
29.19%
Lower AP growth vs. WLDS's 92.80%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
-71.47%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -148.32%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-100.00%
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.
85.88%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
19.28%
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.
-7.08%
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.
7.22%
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.
-483.33%
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.
-4.96%
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.
100.00%
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.