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.
8.40%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
8.86%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
12.86%
EBIT growth below 50% of WLDS's 30.99%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
12.86%
Operating income growth under 50% of WLDS's 30.99%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
12.62%
Net income growth under 50% of WLDS's 33.38%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
13.85%
EPS growth under 50% of WLDS's 33.33%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
12.31%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of WLDS's 33.33%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.12%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.93%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.88%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
26.46%
OCF growth under 50% of WLDS's 84.52%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
27.78%
FCF growth under 50% of WLDS's 84.66%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
377.45%
10Y CAGR of 377.45% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
66.35%
5Y CAGR of 66.35% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
48.59%
3Y CAGR of 48.59% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
443.54%
OCF/share CAGR of 443.54% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
102.20%
OCF/share CAGR of 102.20% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
58.70%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 58.70% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
341.63%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 341.63% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
50.86%
Net income/share CAGR of 50.86% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
42.83%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 42.83% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
105.25%
Equity/share CAGR of 105.25% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-27.51%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-41.14%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. 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.
56.86%
Dividend/share CAGR of 56.86% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.65%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.65% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
16.74%
AR growth of 16.74% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
2.09%
Inventory growth of 2.09% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.06%
Asset growth of 2.06% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
-8.58%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.25%
We’re deleveraging while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
4.62%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.17%
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.
