33.44 - 34.57
31.40 - 61.90
7.61M / 5.95M (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.
1.61%
Positive revenue growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
2.34%
Positive gross profit growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-21.46%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.46%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
50.35%
Positive net income growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
52.38%
Positive EPS growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
52.38%
Positive diluted EPS growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.99%
Share count expansion well above FLNC's 0.47%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.99%
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.
156.52%
Positive OCF growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
142.32%
Positive FCF growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
35.77%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
35.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
35.77%
Positive 3Y CAGR while FLNC is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
127.09%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
127.09%
Positive OCF/share growth while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
127.09%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FLNC's 53.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
37.87%
Positive 10Y CAGR while FLNC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
37.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FLNC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
37.87%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to FLNC's 39.81%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-5.83%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while FLNC stands at 1008.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-5.83%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while FLNC is at 1008.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-5.83%
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.
-8.06%
Firm’s AR is declining while FLNC shows 39.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
37.20%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. FLNC's 197.60%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.84%
Asset growth well under 50% of FLNC's 16.39%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.04%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.90%
We’re deleveraging while FLNC stands at 1181.61%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.62%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
9.02%
We expand SG&A while FLNC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.