PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.75 - 1.81
1.03 - 2.41
122.5K / 296.7K (Avg.)
-1.36 | -1.31
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-20.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-20.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-19.78%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
12.20%
Positive EPS growth while AXSM is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
12.20%
Positive diluted EPS growth while AXSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
35.62%
Share count expansion well above AXSM's 0.57%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
35.62%
Diluted share count expanding well above AXSM's 0.57%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.71%
Negative OCF growth while AXSM is at 16.73%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-10.88%
Negative FCF growth while AXSM is at 16.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-812.85%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
87.84%
Positive OCF/share growth while AXSM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
86.67%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while AXSM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-1279.04%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
88.03%
Positive 5Y CAGR while AXSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
86.27%
Positive short-term CAGR while AXSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1371.24%
Equity/share CAGR of 1371.24% while AXSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
-83.09%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-60.87%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.71%
Negative asset growth while AXSM invests at 6.62%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-34.03%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-19.69%
We’re deleveraging while AXSM stands at 136.68%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
7.98%
R&D dropping or stable vs. AXSM's 40.34%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
58.15%
We expand SG&A while AXSM cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.