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.
5.50%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.47%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-4.00%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.00%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
32.61%
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.
31.82%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
27.27%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
2.65%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.80%
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.
245.90%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
565.38%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
-40.62%
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.
-0.69%
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.
26.98%
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.
-5.81%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
84.20%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
694.63%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-71.98%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-76.92%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-7.00%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
35.86%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
24.47%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
15.99%
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.
7.52%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
14.29%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
7.25%
Asset growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 11.24%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
4.41%
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.
1.63%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.61%
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.
