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.
187.83%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SLDP's 7.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
141.82%
Positive gross profit growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
1131.48%
EBIT growth above 1.5x SLDP's 100.00%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
1131.48%
Positive operating income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
682.71%
Positive net income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
500.00%
Positive EPS growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
500.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-3.85%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.97%
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.
-1723.26%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-4204.46%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-31.83%
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.
221.27%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SLDP's 1291.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
105.69%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SLDP's 142.51%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
-277.17%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-424.53%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-668.10%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
408.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
500.00%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
60.00%
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.
1831.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 1831.22% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
116.58%
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.
219.76%
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.
-7.99%
Inventory is declining while SLDP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
28.58%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
27.93%
Positive BV/share change while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
51.86%
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.
15.25%
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.