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.
3.07%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
12.73%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
715.38%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
715.38%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
41.86%
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.
40.91%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
36.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.78%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.73%
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.
25.00%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
-3.28%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-33.22%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while WLDS stands at 338.04%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-51.97%
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.
-19.72%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 187.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
83.15%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-108.16%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-112.22%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
179.50%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
235.26%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-53.91%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
60.23%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
35.52%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
98.11%
Below 50% of WLDS's 276.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-6.12%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
90.00%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-0.96%
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.
2.42%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
20.79%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-3.77%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
