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.
29.96%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of VUZI's 44.63%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
32.12%
Gross profit growth under 50% of VUZI's 795.24%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
44.68%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VUZI's 7.89%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
44.68%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VUZI's 7.89%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
44.77%
Net income growth above 1.5x VUZI's 2.27%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
46.51%
EPS growth of 46.51% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
45.74%
Diluted EPS growth of 45.74% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
-0.86%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.01%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
2.64%
Dividend growth of 2.64% while VUZI is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
40.94%
OCF growth 1.25-1.5x VUZI's 36.76%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if superior pricing or efficient operations explain the gap.
45.01%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x VUZI's 36.38%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
255.51%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VUZI is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
70.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 12.93%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
41.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VUZI's 43.40%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
140.12%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 10.04%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
54.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of VUZI's 73.23%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
23.83%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VUZI's 48.02%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
279.44%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 46.90% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
92.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 31.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
49.91%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VUZI's 13.14%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-26.31%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VUZI stands at 186.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-47.93%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VUZI is at 2.05%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-29.59%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VUZI is at 200.28%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
150.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 150.02% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.22% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.31% while VUZI is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.08%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
37.89%
We show growth while VUZI is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-1.70%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
12.92%
Positive BV/share change while VUZI is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.46%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
14.02%
We increase R&D while VUZI cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.59%
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.
