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.
22.39%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SLDP's 7.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
9.26%
Positive gross profit growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-4.78%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-45.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-50.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-50.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-6.74%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-6.33%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-124.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
37.44%
Positive FCF growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-67.18%
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.
1.70%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SLDP's 1291.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.51%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SLDP's 142.51%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
88.10%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-117.41%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-124.87%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
106.06%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
133.33%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.00%
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.
9648.54%
Equity/share CAGR of 9648.54% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
260.24%
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.
4.39%
Our AR growth while SLDP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-11.17%
Inventory is declining while SLDP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.02%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
13.30%
Positive BV/share change while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.27%
We have some new debt while SLDP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
17.47%
We expand SG&A while SLDP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.