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.
9.41%
Revenue growth under 50% of WLDS's 483.33%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
11.02%
Gross profit growth under 50% of WLDS's 178.57%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
17.27%
Positive EBIT growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.27%
Positive operating income growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.47%
Positive net income growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
15.75%
EPS growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.85%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
15.87%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.85%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.63%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 3.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.65%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 3.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.75%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-18.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-19.98%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
287.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x WLDS's 115.51%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
75.19%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 115.51%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
51.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 115.51%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
253.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
36.21%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
14.78%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
395.95%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.10%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
98.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-18.37%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WLDS stands at 236.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-28.59%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 236.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
4.00%
Below 50% of WLDS's 236.06%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
120.26%
Dividend/share CAGR of 120.26% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
31.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 31.07% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
17.04%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 17.04% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
55.63%
AR growth of 55.63% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-13.88%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 8500.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.24%
Positive asset growth while WLDS is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.75%
Positive BV/share change while WLDS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
13.41%
Debt growth far above WLDS's 21.56%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
-1.81%
Our R&D shrinks while WLDS invests at 39.17%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
2.98%
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.
