PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.00 - 0.01
0.00 - 0.02
289 / 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.
0.95%
Revenue growth under 50% of SLDP's 7.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-6.92%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-42.00%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-42.00%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
94.54%
Positive net income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
50.00%
Positive EPS growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
100.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
44.17%
Slight or no buybacks while SLDP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
37.23%
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.
267.68%
Positive OCF growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
290.19%
Positive FCF growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.63%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 1291.51%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-47.51%
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.
-8.54%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SLDP stands at 142.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
156.32%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
439.03%
Positive OCF/share growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
214.30%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
134.43%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
877.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
772.00%
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.
18383.98%
Positive short-term equity growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-22.84%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-13.53%
Inventory is declining while SLDP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
16.39%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
22.11%
Positive BV/share change while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
48.69%
We have some new debt while SLDP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
100.04%
We increase R&D while SLDP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.79%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.