111.48 - 114.40
76.75 - 114.40
5.09M / 4.23M (Avg.)
23.96 | 4.77
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.
-23.83%
Negative revenue growth while PUK stands at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-41.87%
Negative gross profit growth while PUK is at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-97.12%
Negative EBIT growth while PUK is at 246.79%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-98.37%
Negative operating income growth while PUK is at 27.93%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-112.82%
Negative net income growth while PUK stands at 2157.71%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-114.56%
Negative EPS growth while PUK is at 1749.71%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-114.71%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PUK is at 1749.71%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.25%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.02%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
5.91%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while PUK cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-124.14%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-172.97%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
15.40%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
15.40%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
15.40%
Positive 3Y CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-7.82%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while PUK stands at 59.45%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-7.82%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while PUK is at 136.38%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-7.82%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while PUK stands at 291.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-268.56%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while PUK is at 202.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-268.56%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while PUK is 835.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-268.56%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PUK is 48.42%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
12.03%
Positive growth while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
12.03%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while PUK is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
12.03%
Positive short-term equity growth while PUK is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-64.08%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-64.08%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-64.08%
Negative near-term dividend growth while PUK invests at 54.50%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
6.66%
AR growth of 6.66% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
4.31%
Inventory growth of 4.31% while PUK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.58%
Asset growth at 50-75% of PUK's 4.12%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-1.91%
We have a declining book value while PUK shows 9.40%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
11.01%
We have some new debt while PUK reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.17%
We cut SG&A while PUK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.
