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.
-5.48%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-6.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-9.13%
Negative EBIT growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-9.13%
Negative operating income growth while WLDS is at 14.74%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-9.26%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-8.50%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-8.50%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.56%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.75%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
5.57%
Dividend growth of 5.57% while WLDS is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
27.18%
OCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 2.82%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
29.06%
FCF growth above 1.5x WLDS's 3.54%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
259.74%
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.
90.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
14.34%
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.
341.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
195.96%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
48.50%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
334.57%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
154.83%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
7.07%
Positive short-term CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-13.41%
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.
-17.47%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
12.65%
Below 50% of WLDS's 276.48%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
113.28%
Dividend/share CAGR of 113.28% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
28.08%
Dividend/share CAGR of 28.08% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
12.24%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.24% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
4.91%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-1.08%
Inventory is declining while WLDS stands at 0.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.72%
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.
-9.59%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-3.14%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
1.30%
We increase R&D while WLDS cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-2.29%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.
