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.
0.20%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
2.96%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-11.76%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.76%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
333.33%
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.
333.33%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
333.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.40%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.89%
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.
-10.91%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-35.56%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-50.03%
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.
-23.14%
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.
-31.77%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WLDS stands at 187.85%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
224.11%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-53.71%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
44.55%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-91.56%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-81.36%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-94.59%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
21.08%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
118.33%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 205.64%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
-11.65%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 276.48%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.01%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-6.82%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.47%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.16%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-3.13%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-1.65%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
0.33%
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.
