PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
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.
7.18%
Positive revenue growth while BIDU is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.53%
Gross profit growth of 6.53% while BIDU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
7.45%
EBIT growth 50-75% of BIDU's 10.24%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
7.45%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of BIDU's 10.24%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
8.86%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 111.16%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
9.26%
EPS growth under 50% of BIDU's 1534.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.55%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of BIDU's 1601.90%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.43%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.57%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.12%
Dividend reduction while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
0.64%
OCF growth under 50% of BIDU's 34.71%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-12.84%
Negative FCF growth while BIDU is at 49.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1280.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of BIDU's 2075.46%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
162.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 888.93%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
52.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 725.18%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1384.97%
OCF/share CAGR of 1384.97% while BIDU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
155.07%
Below 50% of BIDU's 823.05%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
66.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 704.97%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1656.69%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x BIDU's 1089.08% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
483.93%
Below 50% of BIDU's 1645.78%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
47.08%
Below 50% of BIDU's 7276.89%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
778.45%
Below 50% of BIDU's 4273.52%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
100.36%
Below 50% of BIDU's 1070.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
28.76%
Below 50% of BIDU's 741.89%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
8.00%
AR growth well above BIDU's 3.30%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.32%
Asset growth above 1.5x BIDU's 0.20%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.29%
Under 50% of BIDU's 683.29%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.95%
We have some new debt while BIDU reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.60%
We increase R&D while BIDU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.98%
We expand SG&A while BIDU cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.