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.
-4.84%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-1.12%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
1.35%
EBIT growth below 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
1.35%
Operating income growth under 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-26.98%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-29.03%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-26.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.80%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.59%
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.
-72.15%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-85.14%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-40.15%
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.
-6.85%
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.
26.37%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 187.85%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
333.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
-83.07%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
231.33%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
76.19%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
-74.56%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
1.34%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
38.62%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
54.11%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
13.78%
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.
-0.17%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-29.21%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-3.39%
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.
2.87%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
3.36%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.58%
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.
