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.
-38.35%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-21.93%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with WLDS at -1.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-5.65%
Negative yoy deferred tax while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-3.11%
Both cut yoy SBC, with WLDS at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-187.79%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -210.16%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
46.49%
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.
65.86%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-478.94%
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.
-726.19%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -148.32%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
123.72%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. WLDS's 263.93%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-53.84%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
11.84%
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.
-194.12%
Negative yoy acquisition while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
16.07%
Purchases growth of 16.07% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-11.63%
Both yoy lines are negative, with WLDS at -119.06%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
190.38%
Growth of 190.38% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
25.73%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.01%
Buyback growth of 34.01% 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.