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.
8.66%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
6.16%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
7.88%
Positive EBIT growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.88%
Positive operating income growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
6.58%
Positive net income growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
7.50%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.50%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.82%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 35.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.88%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 35.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.03%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
5.39%
Positive OCF growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
0.23%
Positive FCF growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
310.80%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
120.30%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
57.74%
Positive 3Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
332.84%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
98.01%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
35.79%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
313.01%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
148.50%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
69.66%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-29.74%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WLDS stands at 356.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-51.43%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 356.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-37.25%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 356.79%. 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.
45.51%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.51% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.27% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
44.25%
Our AR growth while WLDS is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-8.96%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
4.89%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 2079.42%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-12.07%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 950.83%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
0.32%
Debt shrinking faster vs. WLDS's 548.00%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-0.53%
Our R&D shrinks while WLDS invests at 40.15%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
7.12%
SG&A declining or stable vs. WLDS's 115.47%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.
