PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.81M (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.
0.61%
Revenue growth under 50% of SAND's 2.70%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-0.39%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.39%
Negative EBIT growth while SAND is at 32.50%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-0.39%
Negative operating income growth while SAND is at 32.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
21.86%
Positive net income growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
18.18%
Positive EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
18.18%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.48%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 5.39%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.39%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SAND's 8.81%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-10.15%
Dividend reduction while SAND stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
4.99%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-6.13%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
238.75%
10Y CAGR of 238.75% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
241.38%
5Y CAGR of 241.38% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
10.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 183.04%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
110932.14%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 11200.78%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
343.50%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 300.03%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
-1.33%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SAND stands at 123.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1134.29%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
242.41%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-24.60%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
3212.75%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SAND's 1321.89%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
186.70%
Below 50% of SAND's 1212.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
46.96%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SAND's 35.57%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-38.02%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-0.20%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.91%
Positive BV/share change while SAND is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-4.02%
We’re deleveraging while SAND stands at 0.00%. 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.
-15.28%
We cut SG&A while SAND invests at 9.03%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.