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.
10.67%
Positive revenue growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
10.59%
Positive gross profit growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
16.72%
EBIT growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic initiatives are driving this edge.
16.72%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x WLDS's 14.74%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
-31.29%
Negative net income growth while WLDS stands at 12.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-30.71%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-30.71%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.97%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.69%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-1.38%
Dividend reduction while WLDS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-7.09%
Negative OCF growth while WLDS is at 2.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-10.50%
Negative FCF growth while WLDS is at 3.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
252.56%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of WLDS's 338.04%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
75.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of WLDS's 338.04%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
23.75%
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.
216.56%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
59.44%
Positive OCF/share growth while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
44.23%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
172.27%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
27.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while WLDS is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-22.08%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-20.13%
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.
-25.48%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while WLDS is at 205.64%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-1.91%
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.
110.36%
Dividend/share CAGR of 110.36% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
29.46%
Dividend/share CAGR of 29.46% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
13.56%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 13.56% while WLDS is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
53.44%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. WLDS's 621.28%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
18.18%
Inventory growth well above WLDS's 0.66%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
10.06%
Asset growth at 75-90% of WLDS's 11.24%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
-13.80%
We have a declining book value while WLDS shows 160.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.26%
We have some new debt while WLDS reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.01%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
3.21%
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.
