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.
-1.39%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-4.69%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.69%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-5.43%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-4.85%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.85%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.61%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.72%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
5.62%
Dividend growth of 5.62% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
16.35%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
16.88%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
191.54%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 338.04%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
82.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
22.94%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 187.85%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
185.94%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
98.24%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
32.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
237.55%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
141.05%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
30.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-19.44%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WLDS stands at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
5.42%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
22.87%
Below 50% of WLDS's 276.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
98.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 98.73% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
24.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 24.90% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.27% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-5.95%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-5.49%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.08%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-0.84%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
3.58%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.70%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.16%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
