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.
-42.09%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-10.46%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with WLDS at -1.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-433.96%
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.
-2.89%
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.
-360.84%
Both reduce yoy usage, with WLDS at -210.16%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-42.22%
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.
106.51%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-35.55%
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.
54.05%
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.
-198.15%
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.
-58.21%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
29.57%
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.
25.75%
Acquisition growth of 25.75% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
8.85%
Purchases growth of 8.85% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
33.46%
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.
253.57%
Growth of 253.57% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
128.41%
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.
-169.46%
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.