PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
6.58%
Some net income increase while WLDS is negative at -116.72%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
2.14%
Less D&A growth vs. WLDS's 9.09%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-211.57%
Negative yoy deferred tax while WLDS stands at 8.14%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
1.56%
Less SBC growth vs. WLDS's 10.11%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
98.51%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -213.78%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-550.76%
AR is negative yoy while WLDS is 1000.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
2818.75%
Some inventory rise while WLDS is negative at -33.33%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
456.95%
AP growth well above WLDS's 325.00%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
159.40%
Some yoy usage while WLDS is negative at -265.38%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
519.51%
Some yoy increase while WLDS is negative at -8.14%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
5.39%
Some CFO growth while WLDS is negative at -197.08%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-56.47%
Both yoy lines negative, with WLDS at -120.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-6750.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
17.65%
Purchases growth of 17.65% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-36.93%
We reduce yoy sales while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
3.24%
Growth of 3.24% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-128.74%
Both yoy lines negative, with WLDS at -240.00%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
6.90%
Debt repayment growth of 6.90% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-11.72%
We cut yoy buybacks while WLDS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.