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.
-14.72%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-15.68%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-23.03%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-23.03%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-22.26%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-22.08%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-21.05%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.71%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.86%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
6.77%
Dividend growth of 6.77% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-18.72%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.95%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
284.33%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of WLDS's 338.04%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
134.89%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.39%
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.
264.54%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
239.39%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
122.53%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
257.49%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
186.75%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
118.95%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-15.63%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WLDS stands at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-43.59%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-31.86%
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.
45.61%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.61% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.79%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.79% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-6.96%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-0.49%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.09%
Negative asset growth while WLDS invests at 11.24%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-13.17%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.24%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.42%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.92%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
