PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
84.41%
Revenue growth above 1.5x AEM's 43.89%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
113.04%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x AEM's 66.12%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
101.43%
EBIT growth below 50% of AEM's 216.81%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
101.43%
Operating income growth under 50% of AEM's 216.81%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
82.56%
Positive net income growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
71.43%
Positive EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
57.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AEM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
17.56%
Share count expansion well above AEM's 7.83%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
16.72%
Diluted share count expanding well above AEM's 8.49%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
136.40%
Similar OCF growth to AEM's 144.00%. Walter Schloss would assume comparable operations or industry factors.
114.16%
FCF growth under 50% of AEM's 1252.06%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
176.53%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to AEM's 163.61%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
57829388.07%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 164.18%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
86.27%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 196.42%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15049.50%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 3532.14%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
587.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 1345.17%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
15476.51%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 2040.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
542.05%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of AEM's 817.37%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
753.51%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 114.74%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-41.85%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while AEM stands at 1.19%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
6.26%
Asset growth well under 50% of AEM's 27.76%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
27.21%
1.25-1.5x AEM's 21.99%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-88.89%
We’re deleveraging while AEM stands at 121.57%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
226.59%
We expand SG&A while AEM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.