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.
97.25%
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.
32.78%
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.
128.93%
Deferred tax of 128.93% 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.
40.94%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-18.72%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -210.16%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-584.49%
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.
-507.08%
Negative yoy inventory while WLDS is 55.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
12225.71%
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.
242.86%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
68.32%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
68.74%
CapEx growth well above WLDS's 80.56%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
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.
-47.79%
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.
27.95%
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.
88.40%
Growth of 88.40% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-30.39%
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.
-64.17%
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.