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.
98.48%
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.
17.23%
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.
673.91%
Deferred tax of 673.91% 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.
21.94%
SBC growth while WLDS is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
3.56%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
142.00%
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.
-92.69%
Negative yoy inventory while WLDS is 55.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-78.45%
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.
110.34%
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.
68.88%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
15.30%
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.
88.74%
Acquisition growth of 88.74% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-78.69%
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.
43.55%
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.
-149.29%
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.
-158.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with WLDS at -119.41%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
100.00%
Debt repayment above 1.5x WLDS's 39.79%, indicating stronger deleveraging. David Dodd would verify if expansions are not neglected.
-100.00%
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.
-80.07%
We cut yoy buybacks while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.