1.75 - 1.81
1.03 - 2.41
122.5K / 297.6K (Avg.)
-1.36 | -1.31
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-201.62%
Negative EBIT growth while CRVO is at 27.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-201.62%
Negative operating income growth while CRVO is at 27.72%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-128.59%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-127.78%
Negative EPS growth while CRVO is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-127.78%
Negative diluted EPS growth while CRVO is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
37.70%
Positive OCF growth while CRVO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
37.70%
Positive FCF growth while CRVO is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
24.48%
OCF/share CAGR of 24.48% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
24.48%
OCF/share CAGR of 24.48% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
24.48%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 24.48% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
9.10%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 9.10% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
9.10%
Net income/share CAGR of 9.10% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
9.10%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 9.10% while CRVO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
-301.87%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CRVO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-301.87%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-301.87%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CRVO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.07%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-11.47%
We have a declining book value while CRVO shows 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
6.41%
Debt shrinking faster vs. CRVO's 34.86%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
186.72%
We expand SG&A while CRVO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.