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.
-19.05%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-16.60%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.37%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.37%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-19.46%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.35%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-19.05%
Negative EPS growth while WLDS is at 13.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-19.15%
Negative diluted EPS growth while WLDS is at 13.33%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.66%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 1.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.68%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 1.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.48%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-16.01%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 13.01%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.14%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 11.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
262.47%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
97.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
79.66%
Positive 3Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
280.64%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
140.33%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
137.03%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
321.74%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
122.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
137.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-23.55%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-37.63%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-12.44%
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.
144.19%
Dividend/share CAGR of 144.19% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
45.67%
Dividend/share CAGR of 45.67% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
19.47%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 19.47% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-33.74%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
9.71%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. WLDS's 100.00%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
-4.21%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
10.31%
Positive BV/share change while WLDS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-1.35%
We’re deleveraging while WLDS stands at 191.98%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-3.27%
Our R&D shrinks while WLDS invests at 17.91%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-6.14%
We cut SG&A while WLDS invests at 9.93%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
