PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
40.40 - 41.05
29.80 - 47.18
2.12M / 3.66M (Avg.)
18.02 | 2.27
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-15.69%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 19.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
0.13%
Less D&A growth vs. VET's 25.98%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
275.64%
Well above VET's 62.39% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-328.54%
Both reduce yoy usage, with VET at -16.23%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
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.
-328.54%
Both reduce yoy usage, with VET at -16.23%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
224.19%
Some yoy increase while VET is negative at -54.40%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-28.82%
Negative yoy CFO while VET is 27.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
21.91%
Some CapEx rise while VET is negative at -26.20%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Liquidation growth of 100.00% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-85.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with VET at -1694.99%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-458.90%
Both yoy lines negative, with VET at -567.34%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-294.84%
We cut debt repayment yoy while VET is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-20.41%
Negative yoy issuance while VET is 130.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
17.81%
Buyback growth of 17.81% while VET is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.