229.02 - 234.51
169.21 - 260.10
55.82M / 54.92M (Avg.)
32.24 | 7.26
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.
11.00%
Positive revenue growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.54%
Positive gross profit growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
86.96%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VUZI's 11.13%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
86.96%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VUZI's 10.47%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
131.58%
Net income growth above 1.5x VUZI's 11.25%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
144.44%
EPS growth above 1.5x VUZI's 9.09%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
133.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VUZI's 9.09%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.39%
Share count expansion well above VUZI's 0.33%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.78%
Diluted share count expanding well above VUZI's 0.33%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
812.50%
Positive OCF growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
139.47%
Positive FCF growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-48.42%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-17.85%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
-17.21%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
111.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 60.75%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-83.15%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VUZI is at 51.30%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-58.29%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VUZI stands at 12.89%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
949.21%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 33.50% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
-69.06%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VUZI is 14.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-76.63%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VUZI is 36.24%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
34.18%
Positive growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
91.70%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
-7.18%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VUZI stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
34.86%
Our AR growth while VUZI is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
47.37%
We show growth while VUZI is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
5.81%
Asset growth above 1.5x VUZI's 3.19%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
0.21%
Under 50% of VUZI's 2.76%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.98%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-7.50%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
5.02%
We expand SG&A while VUZI cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
