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.
-41.24%
Negative revenue growth while SLDP stands at 34.89%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-44.89%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-73.94%
Negative EBIT growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-86.49%
Negative operating income growth while SLDP is at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-69.08%
Negative net income growth while SLDP stands at 41.24%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-70.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-70.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.93%
Share count expansion well above SLDP's 0.85%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
-2.64%
Reduced diluted shares while SLDP is at 0.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-185.61%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-187.98%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
170.06%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
-15.95%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
39.74%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SLDP's 160.35%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
-428.17%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP stands at 59.93%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-180.20%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while SLDP is at 59.93%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-72.79%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
498.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-40.20%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
99.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while SLDP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
935.04%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 8.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
82.81%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SLDP's 8.74%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
85.42%
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.
11.07%
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.
0.58%
Inventory growth of 0.58% while SLDP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-2.85%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
8.13%
Positive BV/share change while SLDP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
14.17%
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%
Our R&D shrinks while SLDP invests at 2.14%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-12.77%
We cut SG&A while SLDP invests at 14.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.