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.
-13.75%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.25%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-18.79%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-18.79%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-17.71%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-16.99%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-17.11%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.57%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.45%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
6.05%
Dividend growth of 6.05% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-7.63%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-5.29%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
279.44%
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.
91.04%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
50.60%
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.
452.18%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
126.52%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
78.17%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
372.12%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
114.72%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
94.15%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-19.94%
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.
-34.77%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-8.36%
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.
124.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 124.36% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.08% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
15.69%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 15.69% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
9.16%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-1.75%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
0.87%
Asset growth well under 50% of WLDS's 11.24%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-2.48%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-0.31%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.20%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-3.68%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
