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.
-12.88%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-12.81%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-20.65%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-20.65%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-16.66%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-14.49%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-14.71%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.84%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.80%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
17.86%
Dividend growth of 17.86% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-4.24%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
2.62%
FCF growth 50-75% of WLDS's 3.54%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
804.23%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
98.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
26.02%
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.
1289.68%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
143.77%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
13.45%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1261.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
119.88%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.62%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
642.29%
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.
22.74%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
7.35%
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.
71.16%
Dividend/share CAGR of 71.16% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.43%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.43% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
17.67%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-22.53%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.98%
Negative asset growth while WLDS invests at 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-6.75%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-5.94%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
9.56%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.01%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
