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.
39.37%
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.
8.21%
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.
479.58%
Deferred tax of 479.58% 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.
33.48%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
241.94%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
74.94%
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.
252.29%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-32.88%
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.
75.14%
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.
-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.
71.97%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-55.35%
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%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-18.76%
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.
-21.53%
Both yoy lines are negative, with WLDS at -119.06%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
-195.83%
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.
-144.79%
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.
16.20%
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.