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.
47.15%
Positive EBIT growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
56.38%
Positive operating income growth while DC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-157.71%
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.
114.10%
Share count expansion well above DC's 14.84%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
114.10%
Diluted share count expanding well above DC's 14.84%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
56.78%
Positive OCF growth while DC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
56.78%
Positive FCF growth while DC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
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.
96.25%
Positive OCF/share growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
71.47%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x DC's 52.61%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
93.74%
Positive 10Y CAGR while DC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
98.92%
Positive 5Y CAGR while DC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
96.62%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x DC's 29.50%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-89.89%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while DC stands at 3427.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-83.11%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while DC is at 3427.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-85.29%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-62.71%
Firm’s AR is declining while DC shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.38%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-52.86%
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.
-47.15%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.