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.
-7.25%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-7.30%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.53%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-11.53%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-13.12%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-11.29%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.84%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-2.21%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-2.11%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
7.79%
Dividend growth of 7.79% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
4.31%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
9.60%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
783.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
89.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
51.28%
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.
601.61%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
49.26%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
30.31%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1018.60%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
70.53%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
53.43%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
409.98%
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.
4.92%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
-9.23%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 276.48%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
66.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 66.51% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.60%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.60% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
0.75%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-31.31%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-5.78%
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.
-6.82%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-3.74%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
7.83%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-0.72%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
