PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
205.24 - 207.41
139.95 - 221.69
4.54M / 6.54M (Avg.)
37.59 | 5.48
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.
-10.32%
Negative revenue growth while Technology median is 3.24%. Seth Klarman would investigate if the company is losing market share or facing a declining industry.
-13.87%
Negative gross profit growth while Technology median is 3.15%. Seth Klarman would suspect poor product pricing or inefficient production.
-72.60%
Negative EBIT growth while Technology median is 0.84%. Seth Klarman would check if external or internal factors caused the decline.
-51.78%
Negative operating income growth while Technology median is 1.13%. Seth Klarman would check if structural or cyclical issues are at play.
-53.37%
Negative net income growth while Technology median is 1.99%. Seth Klarman would investigate factors dragging net income down.
-49.18%
Negative EPS growth while Technology median is 0.85%. Seth Klarman would explore whether share dilution or profit declines are to blame.
-49.18%
Negative diluted EPS growth while Technology median is 0.85%. Seth Klarman would look for the cause: weakened profitability or heavier share issuance.
0.03%
Share change of 0.03% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss would see if the modest difference matters long-term.
0.23%
Diluted share change of 0.23% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss might see a slight difference in equity issuance policy.
0.66%
Dividend growth of 0.66% while Technology median is flat. Walter Schloss might appreciate at least a modest improvement.
329.17%
OCF growth of 329.17% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss might see a modest positive difference, which can compound over time.
25.90%
FCF growth of 25.90% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss might see a slight edge that could compound over time.
53.79%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 50-75% of Technology median of 82.38%. Guy Spier would worry about subpar top-line expansion over the long run.
17.67%
Below 50% of Technology median. Jim Chanos would suspect structural disadvantages or a higher share base limiting per-share growth.
-2.29%
Negative 3Y CAGR while Technology median is 31.33%. Seth Klarman would examine if the sector is otherwise stable, indicating a company-specific issue.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
582.23%
OCF/share CAGR of 582.23% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss might see a slight advantage that can compound if momentum builds.
-38.49%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while Technology median is 0.00%. Seth Klarman would check whether it’s cyclical or a firm-specific problem.
392.80%
Net income/share CAGR of 392.80% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss might see a marginal edge that can grow if the firm invests wisely.
140.03%
5Y net income/share CAGR > 1.5x Technology median of 45.91%. Joel Greenblatt might see superior mid-term capital allocation or product strength.
-41.82%
Negative 3Y CAGR while Technology median is 50.00%. Seth Klarman might see a pressing concern if the rest of the sector is stable or growing.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
80.63%
5Y equity/share CAGR of 80.63% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss sees a slight positive that might compound if management executes well.
71.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR of 71.68% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss sees a modest short-term advantage that could compound if momentum persists.
104.00%
Dividend/share CAGR of 104.00% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss sees a minor improvement that could compound if the firm maintains consistent raises.
-78.68%
Dividend cuts or stagnation while Technology median is 0.00%. Seth Klarman sees a disadvantage in shareholder returns vs. peers.
15.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.10% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss sees a slight advantage if the firm is at least inching up payouts.
-3.94%
AR shrinking while Technology median grows. Seth Klarman sees potential advantage unless it signals declining demand.
0.35%
Inventory growth of 0.35% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss checks if we’re preparing for a sales push or risking overstock.
1.30%
Asset growth near Technology median. Charlie Munger attributes it to a typical industry cycle of capital investment.
1.11%
BV/share growth exceeding 1.5x Technology median. Joel Greenblatt checks if consistent ROE or undervalued buybacks fuel this advantage.
14.36%
Debt growth of 14.36% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss might see a modest difference that matters if interest coverage is tight.
-3.29%
R&D dropping while Technology median is rising. Seth Klarman wonders if we risk ceding future innovation or if peers overspend.
1.26%
SG&A growth of 1.26% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss sees a modest overhead increase needing revenue justification.