1.90 - 2.15
0.48 - 2.54
9.88M / 2.92M (Avg.)
-0.48 | -4.19
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.
-3.93%
Negative revenue growth while ACB.TO stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-34.20%
Negative gross profit growth while ACB.TO is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
61.81%
EBIT growth of 61.81% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can be scaled further.
61.81%
Operating income growth of 61.81% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this modest edge can become significant.
53.38%
Net income growth of 53.38% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate into a larger gap.
55.11%
Positive EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
55.11%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
5.26%
Share count expansion well above ACB.TO's 2.40%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
5.26%
Diluted share count expanding well above ACB.TO's 2.40%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-136.34%
Negative OCF growth while ACB.TO is at 53.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-164.10%
Negative FCF growth while ACB.TO is at 43.72%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
373.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-43.99%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
-41900.71%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while ACB.TO stands at 52.72%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
60.67%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of ACB.TO's 96.43%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
89.54%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to ACB.TO's 92.74%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
-3781.62%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ACB.TO is at 3.53%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-193.75%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-402.19%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ACB.TO is 99.54%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
5906.98%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x ACB.TO's 260.44%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
-16.70%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-14.43%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
-4.81%
Firm’s AR is declining while ACB.TO shows 13.80%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
15.72%
Inventory growth well above ACB.TO's 8.62%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.21%
Asset growth well under 50% of ACB.TO's 17.06%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.95%
We have a declining book value while ACB.TO shows 25.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-4.65%
We’re deleveraging while ACB.TO stands at 18.45%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-56.11%
Our R&D shrinks while ACB.TO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-13.48%
We cut SG&A while ACB.TO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.