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.
2.47%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-14.00%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
22.03%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
22.03%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-15.00%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-15.45%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-15.15%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.59%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
-0.08%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-32.48%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-43.05%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
2.26%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-52.48%
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.
-9.56%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 187.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
19.75%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
117.91%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
-37.71%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
27.80%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
116.19%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
160.59%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
110.20%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 205.64%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
8.02%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
167.15%
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.
-1.45%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
560.00%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.86%
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.
-2.23%
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.
4.12%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
1.44%
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.
