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.
5.95%
Revenue growth above 1.5x S's 1.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
6.67%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x S's 2.37%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-93.99%
Negative EBIT growth while S is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-80.62%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-97.47%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-101.01%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-101.01%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.72%
Share reduction more than 1.5x S's 2.03%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.72%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x S's 2.03%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.32%
Negative OCF growth while S is at 1637.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-5.81%
Negative FCF growth while S is at 683.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
71.47%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of S's 736.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
71.47%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of S's 736.73%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
129.82%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to S's 140.57%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
158.19%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of S's 390.75%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
158.19%
Below 50% of S's 390.75%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
196.37%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to S's 187.07%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
76.40%
Positive 10Y CAGR while S is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
76.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while S is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
72.16%
Positive short-term CAGR while S is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
11.07%
Below 50% of S's 4632.03%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
11.07%
Below 50% of S's 4632.03%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
4.69%
Positive short-term equity growth while S is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-7.50%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-2.65%
Inventory is declining while S stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.44%
Positive asset growth while S is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.71%
Positive BV/share change while S is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.27%
Debt growth of 2.27% while S is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
13.60%
We increase R&D while S cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
11.38%
SG&A growth well above S's 4.83%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.