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.
39.61%
Positive revenue growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
104.36%
Positive gross profit growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
79.08%
Positive EBIT growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
79.08%
Positive operating income growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-37.63%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-26.99%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-28.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.33%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
1.66%
Slight or no buyback while MTDR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.21%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MTDR's 0.08%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-32.85%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-69.47%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
478.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of MTDR's 690.14%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
478.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 1272.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
135.70%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1624.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MTDR's 1566.28%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
1624.12%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 362.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
153.74%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1366.29%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 163.75% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1366.29%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 139.65%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
149.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
431.55%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 274.37%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
431.55%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 204.54%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
132.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MTDR's 101.40%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
230.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 230.26% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
230.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 230.26% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
177.01%
Below 50% of MTDR's 529.33%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-15.21%
Firm’s AR is declining while MTDR shows 2.38%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-12.48%
Inventory is declining while MTDR stands at 23.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.80%
Negative asset growth while MTDR invests at 1.79%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
4.11%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MTDR's 2.09%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-12.91%
We’re deleveraging while MTDR stands at 0.54%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
276.65%
We expand SG&A while MTDR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.