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.
29.96%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
32.12%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
44.68%
EBIT growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
44.68%
Operating income growth above 1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
44.77%
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.
46.51%
Positive EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
45.74%
Positive diluted EPS growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.86%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.01%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
2.64%
Dividend growth of 2.64% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
40.94%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
45.01%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
255.51%
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.
70.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
41.78%
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.
140.12%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
54.66%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
23.83%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
279.44%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
92.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
49.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-26.31%
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.
-47.93%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-29.59%
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.
150.02%
Dividend/share CAGR of 150.02% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.22%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.22% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
18.31%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 18.31% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-11.08%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 621.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
37.89%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.70%
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.
12.92%
Under 50% of WLDS's 160.75%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-7.46%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
14.02%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
2.59%
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.
