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.
-1.39%
Negative revenue growth while Technology median is 2.55%. Seth Klarman would investigate if the company is losing market share or facing a declining industry.
-2.56%
Negative gross profit growth while Technology median is 2.81%. Seth Klarman would suspect poor product pricing or inefficient production.
-4.69%
Negative EBIT growth while Technology median is 9.24%. Seth Klarman would check if external or internal factors caused the decline.
-4.69%
Negative operating income growth while Technology median is 6.89%. Seth Klarman would check if structural or cyclical issues are at play.
-5.43%
Negative net income growth while Technology median is 13.51%. Seth Klarman would investigate factors dragging net income down.
-4.85%
Negative EPS growth while Technology median is 14.06%. Seth Klarman would explore whether share dilution or profit declines are to blame.
-4.85%
Negative diluted EPS growth while Technology median is 15.30%. Seth Klarman would look for the cause: weakened profitability or heavier share issuance.
-0.61%
Share reduction while Technology median is 0.04%. Seth Klarman would see a relative advantage if others are diluting.
-0.72%
Diluted share reduction while Technology median is 0.00%. Seth Klarman would see an advantage if others are still diluting.
5.62%
Dividend growth of 5.62% while Technology median is flat. Walter Schloss might appreciate at least a modest improvement.
16.35%
OCF growth below 50% of Technology median of 37.45%. Jim Chanos would question if the firm is generating genuine operational cash.
16.88%
FCF growth below 50% of Technology median of 39.54%. Jim Chanos would be concerned about fundamental cash generation problems.
191.54%
10Y revenue/share CAGR exceeding 1.5x Technology median of 78.18%. Joel Greenblatt would verify if a unique moat or brand fosters outperformance over a decade.
82.37%
5Y revenue/share growth exceeding 1.5x Technology median of 41.66%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company’s moat drives rapid mid-term expansion.
22.94%
3Y revenue/share growth 1.25-1.5x Technology median of 19.36%. Mohnish Pabrai would attribute it to strong near-term market positioning.
185.94%
OCF/share CAGR exceeding 1.5x Technology median of 78.17% over 10 years. Joel Greenblatt would verify if a unique competitive moat underlies these cash flows.
98.24%
5Y OCF/share growth exceeding 1.5x Technology median of 56.01%. Joel Greenblatt might see a strong moat or efficient cost structure driving outperformance.
32.03%
3Y OCF/share growth 50-75% of Technology median. Guy Spier might worry about reduced short-term competitiveness in generating cash.
237.55%
Net income/share CAGR exceeding 1.5x Technology median of 100.00% over a decade. Joel Greenblatt might see a standout compounder of earnings.
141.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR > 1.5x Technology median of 82.14%. Joel Greenblatt might see superior mid-term capital allocation or product strength.
30.72%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of Technology median. Guy Spier might worry about a partial underperformance vs. competitor norms.
-19.44%
Negative 10Y equity/share growth while Technology median is 21.70%. Seth Klarman would see a firm-specific weakness if peers still expand equity.
5.42%
Below 50% of Technology median. Jim Chanos suspects weak profitability or questionable capital allocation limiting equity growth.
22.87%
3Y equity/share CAGR > 1.5x Technology median of 9.22%. Joel Greenblatt sees strong short-term returns on equity fueling net worth growth.
98.73%
Dividend/share CAGR of 98.73% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss sees a minor improvement that could compound if the firm maintains consistent raises.
24.90%
5Y dividend/share CAGR of 24.90% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss sees at least some improvement that could compound over time.
12.27%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 12.27% while Technology is zero. Walter Schloss sees a slight advantage if the firm is at least inching up payouts.
-5.95%
AR shrinking while Technology median grows. Seth Klarman sees potential advantage unless it signals declining demand.
-5.49%
Decreasing inventory while Technology is rising. Seth Klarman might see an efficiency advantage or possibly a sign of weaker sales future.
0.08%
Below 50% of Technology median. Jim Chanos suspects stagnation or limited capital availability for expansions.
-0.84%
Negative BV/share change while Technology median is 2.37%. Seth Klarman sees a firm-specific weakness if peers accumulate net worth.
3.58%
Slightly rising debt while Technology median is deleveraging. Peter Lynch wonders if the firm lags behind peers in risk control or invests in more expansions.
3.70%
R&D growth of 3.70% while Technology median is zero. Walter Schloss wonders if a slight increase yields a meaningful competitive edge.
-1.16%
SG&A decline while Technology grows. Seth Klarman sees potential cost advantage or a risk if it hurts future growth.
