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.
-19.61%
Negative revenue growth while WLDS stands at 365.22%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-14.10%
Negative gross profit growth while WLDS is at 455.56%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-17.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-17.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-17.82%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-17.06%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-16.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.07%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.08%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.56%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-38.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-38.43%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
460.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 214.71%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
133.29%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 214.71%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
75.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 214.71%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
494.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 47.93%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
172.16%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 47.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
90.16%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 47.93%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
508.98%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 15.23% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
195.85%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 15.23%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
105.10%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 15.23%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
73.62%
Equity/share CAGR of 73.62% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-30.18%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-34.59%
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.
56.39%
Dividend/share CAGR of 56.39% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
29.64%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 29.64% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-43.64%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 217.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
4.95%
We show growth while WLDS is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-4.77%
Negative asset growth while WLDS invests at 434.06%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
5.59%
Under 50% of WLDS's 188.46%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
8.57%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
1.92%
R&D dropping or stable vs. WLDS's 40.07%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-5.63%
We cut SG&A while WLDS invests at 49.30%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
