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.
-22.64%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-22.65%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-23.20%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-16.67%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-22.50%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
5.52%
Share count expansion well above RVPH's 6.05%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.56%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x RVPH's 6.05%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-16.84%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-16.73%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
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.
-6820.22%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
80.75%
Positive OCF/share growth while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
65.01%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-4282.29%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
64.75%
Positive 5Y CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
77.40%
Positive short-term CAGR while RVPH is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
285.15%
Below 50% of RVPH's 6459.62%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-96.49%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 6459.62%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-92.46%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while RVPH is at 6459.62%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-28.33%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-49.30%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-8.76%
We’re deleveraging while RVPH stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
23.04%
R&D growth of 23.04% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.
21.61%
SG&A growth of 21.61% while RVPH is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees more spend on admin or marketing, expecting stronger top-line in return.