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.
12.53%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.65%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.59%
EBIT growth 50-75% of WLDS's 14.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
8.59%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 14.74%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
9.28%
Net income growth at 50-75% of WLDS's 12.85%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
12.50%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
9.37%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.31%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.32%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.02%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
29.21%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
20.12%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
1522.02%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
352.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to WLDS's 338.04%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
63.17%
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.
2606.56%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
351.35%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
39.13%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
7128.17%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
438.73%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
40.00%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1888.57%
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.
273.49%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
59.44%
Below 50% of WLDS's 276.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
61.85%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
32.43%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
4.19%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-6.54%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
13.71%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
5.18%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
10.81%
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.
