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.
-16.32%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 7.80%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.32%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-67.18%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-67.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-175.62%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-200.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-200.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
14.57%
Slight or no buybacks while SLDP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
13.52%
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.
135.18%
Positive OCF growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
107.63%
Positive FCF growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-77.23%
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.
-9.90%
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.
36.51%
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.
-89.51%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-58.37%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-87.67%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
49.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-32.00%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1200.00%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
25549.17%
Equity/share CAGR of 25549.17% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
265.66%
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.
-77.83%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
49.04%
Inventory growth of 49.04% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
5.45%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-22.22%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.16%
We have some new debt while SLDP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
55.65%
We increase R&D while SLDP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
15.36%
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.