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.
7.31%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of S's 12.02%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
9.29%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of S's 15.36%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
8.01%
EBIT growth 50-75% of S's 13.02%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
8.01%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of S's 13.02%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
11.62%
Net income growth at 50-75% of S's 16.22%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
15.38%
EPS growth similar to S's 16.22%. Walter Schloss would assume both have parallel share structures and profit trends.
15.38%
Similar diluted EPS growth to S's 16.22%. Walter Schloss might see standard sector or cyclical influences on both firms.
1.02%
Share count expansion well above S's 1.69%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.02%
Diluted share count expanding well above S's 1.69%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-26.15%
Negative OCF growth while S is at 57.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-40.72%
Negative FCF growth while S is at 51.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
0.52%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of S's 430.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
0.52%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of S's 430.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
0.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of S's 430.44%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
107.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x S's 36.29%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
107.97%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x S's 36.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
107.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x S's 36.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
11.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while S is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
11.45%
Positive 5Y CAGR while S is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
11.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while S is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
12.54%
Our AR growth while S is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-32.82%
Inventory is declining while S stands at 8.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.76%
Positive asset growth while S is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
0.47%
Positive BV/share change while S is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.49%
We have some new debt while S reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.97%
We increase R&D while S cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.44%
We expand SG&A while S cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.