PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
40.40 - 41.05
29.80 - 47.18
2.12M / 3.68M (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.
-2.48%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
56.29%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
100.00%
EBIT growth 50-75% of VET's 171.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
674.16%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
293.08%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
295.08%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
293.44%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.54%
Share reduction while VET is at 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.12%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.75%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 8.10%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-100.00%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-303.52%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
81.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 26.56%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
220.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 131.47%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
-38.39%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-100.00%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 2108.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-100.00%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
112.39%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
107.03%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-77.53%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-13.77%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
77.24%
Below 50% of VET's 167.86%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
77.03%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 7.08%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
35.18%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
208.95%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 17.89%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
19.48%
Below 50% of VET's 119.64%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
-100.00%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
272.06%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.50%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.50%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 3.79%. 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.
-100.00%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.