95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
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.
100.00%
Positive revenue growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
100.00%
Positive gross profit growth while AEM is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
64.36%
Positive EBIT growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
64.36%
Positive operating income growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
87.32%
Positive net income growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
87.33%
Positive EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
87.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
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.
-292.20%
Negative OCF growth while AEM is at 61.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-292.20%
Negative FCF growth while AEM is at 467.56%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AEM stands at 29.95%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AEM stands at 332.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AEM stands at 20.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1164.16%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AEM stands at 1495.91%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1370.88%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AEM is 698.56%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.08%
Negative asset growth while AEM invests at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-4.75%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment 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.
110.89%
SG&A growth well above AEM's 11.84%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.