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.
26.61%
Revenue growth above 1.5x META's 12.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
14.04%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x META's 12.33%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
-36.06%
Negative EBIT growth while META is at 10.27%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-36.06%
Negative operating income growth while META is at 16.44%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-37.83%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 10.17%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-17.39%
Negative EPS growth while META is at 10.47%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-17.39%
Negative diluted EPS growth while META is at 11.04%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-24.95%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-26.21%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
106.25%
OCF growth above 1.5x META's 6.39%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
121.21%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
171.62%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1223.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
171.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to META's 190.49%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
171.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 77.04%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
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.
-39.79%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while META is at 2770.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-39.79%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while META is 304.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-39.79%
Negative 3Y CAGR while META is 194.47%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
340.20%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. META's 6.52%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.