PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.00 - 0.01
0.00 - 0.02
1.30M / 496.9K (Avg.)
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.
-19.26%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 7.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-20.12%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-99.81%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-99.81%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-136.77%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-100.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-100.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
8.80%
Slight or no buybacks while SLDP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
8.80%
Slight or no buyback while SLDP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-110.07%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-370.56%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-43.03%
Negative 5Y CAGR while SLDP stands at 1291.51%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-24.94%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SLDP stands at 142.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
95.28%
Positive OCF/share growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
96.04%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
96.53%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
20.63%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
50.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
137.94%
We increase R&D while SLDP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-40.51%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.