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.
-16.99%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-9.56%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-71.19%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-71.19%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
27.32%
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.
26.73%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
23.91%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.70%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.00%
Slight or no buyback while WLDS is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-83.65%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-89.85%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
12.91%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-44.54%
Negative 5Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 338.04%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-5.90%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 187.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-84.28%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
668.87%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-56.65%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
38.15%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
141.38%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
117.87%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
112.38%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 205.64%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
17.45%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
162.86%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 276.48%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.38%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-33.33%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-7.63%
Negative asset growth while WLDS invests at 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-5.18%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.22%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-10.03%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
