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.
-27.78%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with WLDS at -3.90%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
1.48%
Less D&A growth vs. WLDS's 57.14%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-40.47%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-0.57%
Negative yoy SBC while WLDS is 58.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-131.45%
Negative yoy working capital usage while WLDS is 89.08%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
340.87%
AR growth while WLDS is negative at -101.55%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-43.61%
Both reduce yoy inventory, with WLDS at -25.00%. Martin Whitman would find a widespread caution or cyclical demand drop in the niche.
-208.83%
Both negative yoy AP, with WLDS at -27.27%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-64.29%
Negative yoy usage while WLDS is 677.78%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-211.98%
Negative yoy while WLDS is 301.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-40.03%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 10.73%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
10.31%
Lower CapEx growth vs. WLDS's 31.82%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.45%
Purchases growth of 22.45% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-5.91%
We reduce yoy sales while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
3.48%
Growth of 3.48% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
42.47%
Investing outflow well above WLDS's 31.82%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-75.10%
We cut debt repayment yoy while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.51%
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.