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.
-37.40%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 8.95%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
129.53%
Positive gross profit growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
556.16%
Positive EBIT growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
556.16%
Positive operating income growth while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-88.90%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-100.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-100.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
306.15%
Share count expansion well above SLDP's 0.52%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
9.27%
Diluted share count expanding well above SLDP's 0.18%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
126.09%
OCF growth above 1.5x SLDP's 12.35%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
111.67%
FCF growth above 1.5x SLDP's 15.70%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-64.35%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-38.26%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-75.66%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
6692.19%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 86.66%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-75.19%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is at 86.66%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-88.30%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 86.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
582.30%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 82.51% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-95.35%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while SLDP is 82.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-97.71%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SLDP is 82.51%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-53.25%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while SLDP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-66.93%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while SLDP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-72.70%
Firm’s AR is declining while SLDP shows 62.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
136.98%
We show growth while SLDP is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
37.29%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-75.05%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
69.85%
Debt growth far above SLDP's 4.66%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
93.56%
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.