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.
439.10%
Positive EBIT growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
10.94%
Positive operating income growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
11.95%
Positive net income growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
11.92%
EPS growth under 50% of GNPX's 34.62%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
11.92%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of GNPX's 34.62%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
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.
61.50%
OCF growth above 1.5x GNPX's 7.14%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
61.50%
FCF growth above 1.5x GNPX's 7.14%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
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.
-26.75%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 91.62%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-26.75%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX is at 96.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-12.80%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 96.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-1.77%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while GNPX is at 99.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-1.77%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while GNPX is 96.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-83.78%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GNPX is 96.48%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-414.12%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-414.12%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-184.96%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.90%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-100.00%
We’re deleveraging while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.50%
We cut SG&A while GNPX invests at 52.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.