3.02 - 3.02
2.85 - 3.74
400 / 3.8K (Avg.)
12.58 | 0.24
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.
-10.63%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.06%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-45.06%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-58.66%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-49.00%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-52.50%
Negative EPS growth while MZX.DE is at 18.18%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-52.50%
Negative diluted EPS growth while MZX.DE is at 18.18%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
3.75%
Slight or no buybacks while MZX.DE is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.75%
Slight or no buyback while MZX.DE is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
67.13%
Positive OCF growth while MZX.DE is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
178.77%
FCF growth above 1.5x MZX.DE's 7.98%. 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.
37.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MZX.DE's 19.96%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
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.
177.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to MZX.DE's 186.90%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
132.12%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MZX.DE's 56.26%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15.97%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.97% while MZX.DE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.07%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-2.77%
Inventory is declining while MZX.DE stands at 2.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.36%
Asset growth above 1.5x MZX.DE's 0.00%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
9.63%
Under 50% of MZX.DE's 414.42%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.92%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
42.06%
SG&A growth well above MZX.DE's 34.02%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.