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.
18.09%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
17.94%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
27.80%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
27.80%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
22.62%
Net income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 12.85%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
25.42%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
25.86%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.65%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.60%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.75%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
34.75%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
46.89%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
930.36%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
121.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
43.64%
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.
487.86%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
159.73%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
70.39%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1508.05%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
147.85%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
49.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
521.47%
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.
14.31%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
5.58%
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.
68.04%
Dividend/share CAGR of 68.04% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
40.06%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 40.06% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
85.82%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-33.36%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.73%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-5.22%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.10%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.32%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.63%
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.
