PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
21.62%
Revenue growth under 50% of WEED.TO's 256.02%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
39.20%
Gross profit growth under 50% of WEED.TO's 136.64%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-255.04%
Negative EBIT growth while WEED.TO is at 26.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-255.04%
Negative operating income growth while WEED.TO is at 26.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
102.01%
Net income growth at 75-90% of WEED.TO's 120.05%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
60.99%
EPS growth at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 114.47%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
101.35%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 75.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
16.05%
Share reduction more than 1.5x WEED.TO's 36.78%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
14.82%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x WEED.TO's 42.51%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-96.29%
Negative OCF growth while WEED.TO is at 25.85%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-212.61%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6217.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 634.37%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
103.53%
OCF/share CAGR of 103.53% while WEED.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
112.04%
Positive OCF/share growth while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
102.33%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
387.66%
Below 50% of WEED.TO's 976.73%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
2084.63%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 890.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
232.29%
Below 50% of WEED.TO's 727.35%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
2867.95%
Equity/share CAGR of 2867.95% while WEED.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
4806.10%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with WEED.TO's 5063.91%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
1601.21%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to WEED.TO's 1584.99%. 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.
830.66%
AR growth well above WEED.TO's 108.43%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
36.09%
Inventory growth well above WEED.TO's 22.97%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
95.84%
Asset growth at 50-75% of WEED.TO's 190.28%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
66.82%
Under 50% of WEED.TO's 194.83%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
19.54%
We have some new debt while WEED.TO reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
38.52%
R&D dropping or stable vs. WEED.TO's 170.78%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
69.20%
We expand SG&A while WEED.TO cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.