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.
-24.10%
Negative revenue growth while WLDS stands at 462.86%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-22.94%
Negative gross profit growth while WLDS is at 618.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-30.89%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-30.89%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-30.31%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.14%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-29.82%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.67%
Share reduction while WLDS is at 3.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.72%
Reduced diluted shares while WLDS is at 3.01%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-2.35%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-43.13%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 18.11%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-44.82%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 19.08%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
216.10%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 696.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
89.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 696.58%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
10.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 153.12%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
166.46%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
146.85%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
2.89%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
267.58%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
148.11%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
8.78%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-1.85%
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.
-14.94%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
16.63%
Positive short-term equity growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
121.66%
Dividend/share CAGR of 121.66% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
30.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 30.77% 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.
-17.87%
Firm’s AR is declining while WLDS shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-4.29%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 18.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-4.56%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
0.80%
Positive BV/share change while WLDS is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-3.19%
We’re deleveraging while WLDS stands at 312.87%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
2.69%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.69%
We cut SG&A while WLDS invests at 12.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
