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.
14.74%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x META's 11.91%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
5.03%
Gross profit growth similar to META's 4.61%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
-4.49%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-4.49%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-3.63%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-4.55%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-4.55%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.30%
Slight or no buybacks while META is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.20%
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.
15.11%
Positive OCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
12.67%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
10348.64%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 72.91%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
200.13%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 72.91%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
114.12%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 72.91%. 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.
228.93%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 145.20%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
155.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to META's 145.20%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
10971.47%
Positive 10Y CAGR while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
186.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
81.58%
Positive short-term CAGR while META is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
213.23%
Equity/share CAGR of 213.23% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
98.34%
Equity/share CAGR of 98.34% 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.
28.50%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. META's 137.55%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
1143.14%
Inventory growth of 1143.14% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
11.55%
Asset growth well under 50% of META's 107.80%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.56%
Under 50% of META's 170.58%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
13.75%
Debt growth of 13.75% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
9.99%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 360.78%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
19.10%
SG&A declining or stable vs. META's 246.15%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.