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.
-31.79%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-13.60%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with WLDS at -1.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.83%
Both cut yoy SBC, with WLDS at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
39.48%
Slight usage while WLDS is negative at -210.16%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
43.04%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. WLDS's 393.62%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
199.07%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 55.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-18.92%
Negative yoy AP while WLDS is 92.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
19.60%
Some yoy usage while WLDS is negative at -148.32%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
89.65%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. WLDS's 263.93%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-19.99%
Negative yoy CFO while WLDS is 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-4.46%
Negative yoy CapEx while WLDS is 80.56%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.17%
Negative yoy purchasing while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-36.59%
Both yoy lines are negative, with WLDS at -119.06%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting fewer sales or fewer maturities within the niche.
94.69%
Growth of 94.69% while WLDS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-70.21%
Both yoy lines negative, with WLDS at -119.41%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
49.95%
Debt repayment 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 39.79%. Bruce Berkowitz would see an edge in lowering interest burdens unless competitor invests in profitable expansions.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.71%
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.