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.
16.30%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
9.08%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
6.41%
EBIT growth below 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
6.41%
Operating income growth under 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.82%
Net income growth under 50% of WLDS's 12.85%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
8.33%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
8.33%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.51%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.49%
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.
106.05%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
105.77%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
513.08%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
298.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of WLDS's 338.04%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
175.76%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to WLDS's 187.85%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
1362.16%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
808.88%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
271.81%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1059.13%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
811.20%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
277.89%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
635.71%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
464.75%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
205.62%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 276.48%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
121.73%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
47.65%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
13.44%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 11.24%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
9.00%
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.
8.92%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
17.87%
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.
