PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Samsara Inc. (IOT)
33.600.80 (-2.33%)
33.44 - 34.57
31.40 - 61.90
7.61M / 5.87M (Avg.)
-152.73 | -0.22
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.
9.51%
Positive revenue growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.67%
Positive gross profit growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-26.39%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-26.39%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-26.60%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-30.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.94%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FLNC's 2.12%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.94%
Slight or no buyback while FLNC 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.
339.06%
Positive OCF growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
176.67%
Positive FCF growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
2.99%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FLNC's 27.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
2.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FLNC's 27.96%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
2.99%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FLNC's 27.96%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
112.47%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with FLNC's 113.57%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
112.47%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to FLNC's 113.57%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
112.47%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to FLNC's 113.57%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
21.93%
Below 50% of FLNC's 45.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
21.93%
Below 50% of FLNC's 45.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
21.93%
Below 50% of FLNC's 45.25%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-1.99%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FLNC stands at 1086.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-1.99%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FLNC is at 1086.72%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-1.99%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while FLNC is at 1086.72%. 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.
-16.52%
Firm’s AR is declining while FLNC shows 21.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-20.13%
Inventory is declining while FLNC stands at 150.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.14%
Negative asset growth while FLNC invests at 34.27%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.56%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-14.27%
We’re deleveraging while FLNC stands at 2.09%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
10.55%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. FLNC's 5.21%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
15.51%
SG&A growth well above FLNC's 3.20%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.