PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Orla Mining Ltd. (ORLA)
11.070.67 (6.44%)
10.50 - 11.12
3.81 - 12.83
1.80M / 1.60M (Avg.)
158.14 | 0.07
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.33%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.97%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-1.33%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.05%
Share count expansion well above CGAU's 1.00%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
1.05%
Diluted share count expanding well above CGAU's 1.00%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.37%
OCF growth under 50% of CGAU's 507.27%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
7.52%
FCF growth under 50% of CGAU's 147.08%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
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.
81.91%
Positive OCF/share growth while CGAU is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
17.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of CGAU's 36.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
11.93%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CGAU is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
24.95%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CGAU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-24.98%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CGAU is 83.23%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-93.56%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while CGAU stands at 87.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-91.11%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while CGAU is at 2.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-88.34%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while CGAU is at 2.07%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-11.51%
Negative asset growth while CGAU invests at 2.25%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-14.55%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment 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.
0.97%
SG&A declining or stable vs. CGAU's 14.41%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.