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.
-21.52%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-21.54%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-27.74%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.74%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-27.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-27.01%
Negative EPS growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-27.62%
Negative diluted EPS growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.69%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.70%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-3.00%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-40.03%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 10.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-41.92%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 11.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
298.63%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
136.15%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
92.58%
Positive 3Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
223.59%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
187.73%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
189.99%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
245.56%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
191.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
148.46%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
5.59%
Equity/share CAGR of 5.59% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-35.45%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-26.88%
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.
53.67%
Dividend/share CAGR of 53.67% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.92%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.92% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-30.42%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 112.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-7.08%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-8.01%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-5.65%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-2.29%
We’re deleveraging while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.28%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-3.97%
We cut SG&A while WLDS invests at 8.16%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
