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.
-30.31%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with WLDS at -7.45%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-0.42%
Negative yoy D&A while WLDS is 20.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.10%
Both cut yoy SBC, with WLDS at -15.15%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-613.27%
Negative yoy working capital usage while WLDS is 126.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-82.12%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with WLDS at -88.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
238.69%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 81.76%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-167.90%
Both negative yoy AP, with WLDS at -179.19%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.71%
Some yoy increase while WLDS is negative at -165.95%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-43.13%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 18.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
16.56%
Lower CapEx growth vs. WLDS's 64.36%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-56.05%
Negative yoy purchasing while WLDS stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
20.93%
Liquidation growth of 20.93% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-56.69%
We reduce yoy other investing while WLDS is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-116.09%
We reduce yoy invests while WLDS stands at 288.90%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
20.98%
Debt repayment growth of 20.98% 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.
-15.22%
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.