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.
8.73%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-3.08%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
1.75%
EBIT growth below 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.75%
Operating income growth under 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.26%
Net income growth under 50% of WLDS's 12.85%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.26%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.61%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
2.37%
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.
-95.24%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-783.33%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-39.46%
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.
-33.64%
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.
-24.61%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 187.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-99.57%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-98.70%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-99.43%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-79.43%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
102.81%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-77.14%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
33.65%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
129.69%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 205.64%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
42.40%
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.
29.32%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
13.04%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
2.32%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.59%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.27%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.77%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-6.57%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
