PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
8.34%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x GTLB's 7.23%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
9.70%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x GTLB's 7.77%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
21.49%
EBIT growth 75-90% of GTLB's 25.27%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
21.49%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of GTLB's 25.51%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
24.07%
Positive net income growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
23.00%
Positive EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
23.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
1.07%
Share count expansion well above GTLB's 0.96%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.07%
Diluted share count expanding well above GTLB's 0.96%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
54.00%
Positive OCF growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
80.96%
Positive FCF growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-4.16%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GTLB stands at 203.27%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-4.16%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 203.27%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-4.16%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 203.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
113.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GTLB's 63.98%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
113.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GTLB's 63.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
113.23%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x GTLB's 63.98%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
35.56%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
35.56%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
35.56%
Positive short-term CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
169.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 169.40% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
169.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 169.40% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
169.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 169.40% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
-0.19%
Firm’s AR is declining while GTLB shows 28.57%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
24.51%
Inventory growth of 24.51% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.66%
Asset growth at 75-90% of GTLB's 3.18%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
0.48%
Positive BV/share change while GTLB is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.91%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-4.92%
Our R&D shrinks while GTLB invests at 0.10%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.63%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.