PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
238.00 - 242.07
140.53 - 242.25
26.77M / 38.44M (Avg.)
25.64 | 9.39
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.
5.35%
Revenue growth under 50% of BIDU's 10.91%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.43%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of BIDU's 8.25%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
-2.42%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-2.42%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.22%
Positive net income growth while BIDU is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.00%
Positive EPS growth while BIDU is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while BIDU is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.42%
Slight or no buybacks while BIDU is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.41%
Slight or no buyback while BIDU is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-14.00%
Negative OCF growth while BIDU is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-18.70%
Negative FCF growth while BIDU is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
848.96%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 14139.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
138.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 340.74%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
26.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of BIDU's 194.91%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
644.98%
OCF/share CAGR of 644.98% while BIDU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
93.34%
OCF/share CAGR of 93.34% while BIDU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
43.36%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while BIDU is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
737.27%
Below 50% of BIDU's 22915.48%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
70.56%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x BIDU's 51.15%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
74.74%
Positive short-term CAGR while BIDU is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
960.33%
Below 50% of BIDU's 3876.19%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
149.42%
Equity/share CAGR of 149.42% while BIDU is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
63.28%
Below 50% of BIDU's 142.75%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
4.16%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. BIDU's 9.81%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
68.09%
Inventory growth well above BIDU's 99.10%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
3.94%
Asset growth above 1.5x BIDU's 1.56%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.55%
Positive BV/share change while BIDU is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.04%
We’re deleveraging while BIDU stands at 4.24%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.81%
We increase R&D while BIDU cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
4.82%
SG&A declining or stable vs. BIDU's 46.58%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.