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.
-30.55%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
1.96%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-9.82%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-9.82%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.68%
Negative net income growth while VET stands at 44.56%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.86%
Negative EPS growth while VET is at 40.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.86%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VET is at 55.56%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.03%
Share change of 0.03% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.15%
Diluted share change of 0.15% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
-0.03%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-10.38%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
54.43%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
650.59%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 421.28%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
160.91%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 58.81%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
29.84%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1708.47%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 831.91%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
102.79%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 87.67%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
4.89%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1159.25%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 605.26% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
435.30%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 107.67%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-14.12%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
885.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 315.57%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
231.59%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 75.18%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.42%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 35.23%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1937.12%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1937.12% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
952.41%
5Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.44%. David Dodd checks if the firm's mid-term cash flows justify a faster dividend growth rate.
516.82%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 12.00%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
-10.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
3.08%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. VET's 35.60%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
0.72%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.69%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-20.40%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
14.86%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.