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.
-3.36%
Negative revenue growth while KGC stands at 4.91%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
9.63%
Positive gross profit growth while KGC is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
17.56%
Positive EBIT growth while KGC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.56%
Positive operating income growth while KGC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
9.89%
Positive net income growth while KGC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-5.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-15.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
10.37%
Slight or no buybacks while KGC is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
20.16%
Slight or no buyback while KGC is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.69%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
24.94%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while KGC is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
25016083.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while KGC is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-0.92%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6533.86%
Positive OCF/share growth while KGC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
505.38%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while KGC is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
133689.28%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x KGC's 52.33%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
637.84%
Positive short-term CAGR while KGC is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
432.02%
Positive short-term equity growth while KGC is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
513.55%
AR growth well above KGC's 112.21%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.07%
Positive asset growth while KGC is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
38.01%
Positive BV/share change while KGC is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
111.86%
We expand SG&A while KGC cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.