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.
-9.10%
Negative revenue growth while VUZI stands at 3.51%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-7.42%
Negative gross profit growth while VUZI is at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-12.28%
Negative EBIT growth while VUZI is at 10.43%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-12.28%
Negative operating income growth while VUZI is at 10.43%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-7.98%
Negative net income growth while VUZI stands at 9.49%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-7.09%
Negative EPS growth while VUZI is at 7.14%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-7.14%
Negative diluted EPS growth while VUZI is at 7.14%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.74%
Share reduction while VUZI is at 0.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.87%
Reduced diluted shares while VUZI is at 0.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
10.10%
Dividend growth of 10.10% while VUZI is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-12.04%
Negative OCF growth while VUZI is at 19.29%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-12.49%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
344.45%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
151.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 44.63%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
79.54%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
196.12%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while VUZI is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
159.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 55.66%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
70.98%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VUZI's 50.08%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
363.96%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 50.82% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
265.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 55.97%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
121.68%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 26.16%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
44.55%
Below 50% of VUZI's 257.85%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-33.49%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VUZI is at 310.04%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-34.33%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VUZI is at 89.29%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
54.75%
Dividend/share CAGR of 54.75% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
21.10%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 21.10% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
2.64%
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.
-0.79%
Inventory is declining while VUZI stands at 25.32%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-2.17%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-6.39%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.12%
We have some new debt while VUZI reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
8.65%
R&D dropping or stable vs. VUZI's 21.08%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.84%
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.
