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.
5.26%
Revenue growth under 50% of META's 22.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
3.81%
Gross profit growth under 50% of META's 21.45%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
25.48%
EBIT growth above 1.5x META's 4.90%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
25.48%
Operating income growth above 1.5x META's 4.90%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
39.32%
Net income growth above 1.5x META's 3.00%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
35.71%
EPS growth above 1.5x META's 3.85%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
35.71%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x META's 3.84%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.22%
Share change of 0.22% while META is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.11%
Reduced diluted shares while META is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
10.94%
Positive OCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
14.02%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
7718.33%
10Y CAGR of 7718.33% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
244.10%
5Y CAGR of 244.10% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
63.78%
3Y CAGR of 63.78% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
291.97%
OCF/share CAGR of 291.97% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
94.05%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 94.05% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
9983.34%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 9983.34% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
225.27%
Net income/share CAGR of 225.27% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
95.58%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 95.58% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
264.45%
Equity/share CAGR of 264.45% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
95.40%
Equity/share CAGR of 95.40% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
21.27%
AR growth of 21.27% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-52.19%
Inventory is declining while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.17%
Asset growth of 8.17% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
6.20%
BV/share growth of 6.20% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
30.66%
Debt growth of 30.66% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.65%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 73.68%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
7.54%
SG&A declining or stable vs. META's 50.42%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.