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.
0.59%
Positive revenue growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.35%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-3.36%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.36%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
6.88%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
4.76%
Positive EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
4.76%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.34%
Slight or no buybacks while META is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.34%
Slight or no buyback while META 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.
-5.86%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
3.83%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
17079.97%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 66.25%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
176.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 66.25%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
87.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 66.25%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
188.01%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 46.83%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
59.14%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 46.83%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
24386.90%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 1.07% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
174.21%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 1.07%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
96.82%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 1.07%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
219.31%
Equity/share CAGR of 219.31% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
100.37%
Equity/share CAGR of 100.37% 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.
-7.44%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-76.28%
Inventory is declining while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
6.30%
Asset growth well under 50% of META's 13.47%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.78%
Under 50% of META's 31.24%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
29.76%
Debt growth far above META's 4.28%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
10.76%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 23.39%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-21.23%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 15.96%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.