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.
-11.65%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-22.33%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-27.12%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.12%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
0.59%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2.40%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
2.42%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.30%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.54%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.12%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 19.47%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
52.98%
Positive OCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
480.44%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-22.38%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
11.78%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
27.55%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 6.81%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
-26.83%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 17.83%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
15.45%
Below 50% of VET's 51.93%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
31.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 6.43%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-30.15%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
4.99%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
261.68%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-15.54%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
7.00%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 3.99%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
155.92%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 53.96%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
-12.18%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
227.32%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while VET is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
207.52%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 207.52% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-2.00%
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.
-0.13%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.97%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.69%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 4.80%. 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.
-14.44%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 26.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.