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.
43.38%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
44.85%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
63.64%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
63.64%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
62.47%
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.
65.79%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
64.47%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.69%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.45%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.47%
Dividend growth of 3.47% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
53.27%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
65.81%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
738.72%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 338.04%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
62.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
40.64%
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.
656.20%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
19.76%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
34.48%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
842.99%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
63.27%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
49.16%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
258.58%
10Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 205.64%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strong ROE or conservative payout policy fosters faster book value growth.
-3.92%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-18.84%
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.
67.21%
Dividend/share CAGR of 67.21% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
35.70%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 35.70% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-12.79%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-0.22%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.62%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.64%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
0.23%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
8.30%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
13.52%
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.
