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.
-7.76%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-0.78%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
0.60%
EBIT growth below 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
0.60%
Operating income growth under 50% of WLDS's 14.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
-0.28%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.42%
Slight or no buybacks while WLDS is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.30%
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.
-36.37%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-34.63%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1192.38%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
415.45%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
212.84%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 187.85%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
10696.94%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
4631.75%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
396.64%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
10338.87%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1230.09%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
445.83%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1133.06%
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.
544.98%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
224.44%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of WLDS's 276.48%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
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.
2.03%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
5.08%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
9.41%
Asset growth at 75-90% of WLDS's 11.24%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
11.98%
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.
1.04%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-7.01%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
