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.
3.29%
Positive EBIT growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
3.29%
Positive operating income growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
27.01%
Positive net income growth while GNPX is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
26.90%
EPS growth at 75-90% of GNPX's 34.62%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
26.90%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of GNPX's 34.62%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
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.
3.31%
OCF growth under 50% of GNPX's 7.14%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
3.31%
FCF growth under 50% of GNPX's 7.14%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
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.
-12.36%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 91.62%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-12.36%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX is at 96.48%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-12.36%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GNPX stands at 96.26%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
44.63%
Below 50% of GNPX's 99.56%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
44.63%
Below 50% of GNPX's 96.58%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
44.63%
Below 50% of GNPX's 96.48%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-80.42%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GNPX stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-80.42%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-80.42%
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.
0.02%
Positive asset growth while GNPX is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-16.23%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
14.30%
Debt growth of 14.30% while GNPX is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.62%
We cut SG&A while GNPX invests at 52.68%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.