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.
-35.79%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 110.55%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
987.72%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SLDP's 162.41%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
165.89%
Positive EBIT growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
165.89%
Positive operating income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
479.74%
Positive net income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.46%
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.
-163.38%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-201.42%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
10.79%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
119.97%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-28.44%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-1016.95%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 76.96%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-462.70%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is at 76.96%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-47.31%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 76.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
336.32%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1037.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-62.50%
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.
99.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 58.45%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
55.73%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to SLDP's 58.45%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
22.72%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SLDP's 97.71%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
30.13%
We show growth while SLDP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-0.81%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.82%
Under 50% of SLDP's 54408.38%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-10.95%
We’re deleveraging while SLDP stands at 6396.92%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-100.00%
Our R&D shrinks while SLDP invests at 4.19%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
133.02%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SLDP's 352.73%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.