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.
65.08%
Revenue growth above 1.5x MTDR's 27.72%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
113.05%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x MTDR's 31.88%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
348.34%
EBIT growth similar to MTDR's 357.61%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
348.34%
Operating income growth similar to MTDR's 357.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
220.00%
Net income growth at 50-75% of MTDR's 372.56%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
219.88%
EPS growth at 50-75% of MTDR's 404.35%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
216.96%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of MTDR's 404.35%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.18%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
0.03%
Slight or no buyback while MTDR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
0.18%
Dividend growth under 50% of MTDR's 5.36%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
48.38%
Positive OCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
72.42%
Positive FCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
5.78%
10Y CAGR of 5.78% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
-30.01%
Negative 5Y CAGR while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-56.16%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
28.20%
OCF/share CAGR of 28.20% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
-39.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MTDR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
141.84%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 141.84% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
164.85%
Net income/share CAGR of 164.85% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
-34.35%
Negative 3Y CAGR while MTDR is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
379.13%
Equity/share CAGR of 379.13% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
46.13%
Equity/share CAGR of 46.13% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
-11.52%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MTDR is at 0.00%. 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.
168.41%
Dividend/share CAGR of 168.41% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
-0.71%
Negative near-term dividend growth while MTDR invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-6.37%
Firm’s AR is declining while MTDR shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
100.00%
Inventory growth of 100.00% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.34%
Asset growth of 3.34% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
3.58%
BV/share growth of 3.58% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-2.15%
We’re deleveraging while MTDR stands at 0.00%. 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.
-32.71%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.