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.
48.69%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
54.21%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
74.42%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
74.42%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
68.51%
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.
68.80%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
69.35%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.58%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.70%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
3.12%
Dividend growth of 3.12% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
132.50%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
160.13%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
325.44%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to WLDS's 338.04%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
104.54%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
69.89%
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.
325.51%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
122.98%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
103.36%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
321.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
150.28%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.45%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
27.03%
Below 50% of WLDS's 205.64%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-29.75%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-29.49%
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.
54.17%
Dividend/share CAGR of 54.17% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
20.88%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 20.88% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
26.69%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-10.70%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.60%
Asset growth at 75-90% of WLDS's 11.24%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
14.68%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-1.54%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
9.25%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
14.83%
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.
