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.
14.97%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-8.42%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
103.26%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
103.26%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
101.43%
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.
101.38%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
101.43%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.80%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-1.94%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.19%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.95%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-27.73%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
454.38%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
92.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
64.15%
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.
-524.87%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-97.15%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
290.54%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
112.65%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 205.64%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
45.42%
Below 50% of WLDS's 276.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
11.87%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 11.87% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.21%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
21.63%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
8.46%
Asset growth at 75-90% of WLDS's 11.24%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
-0.50%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
169.40%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-100.00%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-40.47%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
