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.
-14.49%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-16.80%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-22.95%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-22.95%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-21.31%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-20.34%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-20.69%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.10%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.06%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
12.54%
Dividend growth of 12.54% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-21.45%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-22.32%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1303.27%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
252.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 338.04%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
62.06%
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.
3061.99%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
247.90%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
68.31%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
3232.86%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
265.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
38.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1734.71%
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.
224.87%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with WLDS's 205.64%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
28.69%
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.
-4.91%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-14.77%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.58%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.49%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
24.04%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
6.05%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.01%
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.
