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.
6.08%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.50%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
9.01%
EBIT growth 50-75% of WLDS's 14.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
9.01%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 14.74%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
8.87%
Net income growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 12.85%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
11.11%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
11.11%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.57%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.64%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
0.08%
Dividend growth of 0.08% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
26.57%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
30.80%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
1650.48%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
365.68%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to WLDS's 338.04%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
86.32%
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.
10773.69%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
126.34%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
76.35%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
13577.81%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
548.80%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
76.38%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
2243.86%
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.
443.65%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
161.49%
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.
48.23%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
3.95%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.57%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.76%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.01%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.85%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
1.06%
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.
