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
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.
-16.04%
Negative revenue growth while AR stands at 21.15%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-35.12%
Negative gross profit growth while AR is at 330.28%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-142.19%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-142.19%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-188.64%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-188.65%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-188.65%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.69%
Dividend growth of 7.69% while AR is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
6.99%
OCF growth above 1.5x AR's 2.62%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
-710.53%
Negative FCF growth while AR is at 124.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-78.32%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 354.12%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-71.35%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 354.12%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-50.31%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 80.04%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-87.61%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 159.34%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-84.62%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while AR is at 159.34%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-62.95%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 37.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-144.94%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
2.01%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
3.70%
Positive short-term CAGR while AR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-63.08%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 209.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-67.81%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 209.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
2.38%
Below 50% of AR's 44.79%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-81.06%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-91.83%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-69.12%
Negative near-term dividend growth while AR invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-33.40%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 13.94%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.52%
Positive asset growth while AR is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-1.70%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.09%
We have some new debt while AR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.90%
We cut SG&A while AR invests at 8.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.