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.
23.74%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
19.02%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
62.45%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
62.45%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
52.79%
Net income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 12.85%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
56.16%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
56.16%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-2.87%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.87%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
10.94%
Dividend growth of 10.94% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
132.24%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
410.70%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
229.77%
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.
229.77%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 338.04%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
71.65%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
12.02%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
14.91%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
6.10%
Asset growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 11.24%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
9.95%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-81.24%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
12.65%
We expand SG&A while WLDS cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
