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.
-47.69%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 29.76%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
0.48%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SLDP's 58.97%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-48.14%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 3.04%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-48.14%
Negative operating income growth while SLDP is at 3.04%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-64.13%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-62.96%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-62.96%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.58%
Share reduction while SLDP is at 0.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.64%
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.
-163.45%
Negative OCF growth while SLDP is at 7.95%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-180.97%
Negative FCF growth while SLDP is at 9.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
482.38%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
546.35%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
314.68%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-2943.31%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 73.31%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-6929.20%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is at 73.31%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-250.99%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 73.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
2072.00%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 79.04% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
1593.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 79.04%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
469.94%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 79.04%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
86332.39%
Equity/share CAGR of 86332.39% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
238.84%
Equity/share CAGR of 238.84% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
74.60%
Equity/share CAGR of 74.60% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
-62.89%
Firm’s AR is declining while SLDP shows 58.71%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
96.60%
Inventory growth of 96.60% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
19.14%
Positive asset growth while SLDP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
20.81%
Positive BV/share change while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
111.67%
We have some new debt while SLDP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
94.56%
SG&A growth well above SLDP's 13.59%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.