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.
5.71%
Positive revenue growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
1.11%
Positive gross profit growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
9.21%
Positive EBIT growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
9.21%
Positive operating income growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.94%
Net income growth under 50% of META's 404.65%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
13.64%
EPS growth under 50% of META's 200.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
13.64%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of META's 200.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.33%
Slight or no buybacks while META is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.50%
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.
-22.19%
Negative OCF growth while META is at 5.58%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-33.41%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
4118.73%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 97.83%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
155.24%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 97.83%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
98.35%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to META's 97.83%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
2317.70%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 106.71%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
93.46%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 106.71%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
35.25%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 106.71%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
9577.61%
Positive 10Y CAGR while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
142.57%
Positive 5Y CAGR while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
64.65%
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.
193.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 193.85% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
89.65%
Equity/share CAGR of 89.65% 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.
0.99%
Our AR growth while META is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
28.32%
Inventory growth of 28.32% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.09%
Asset growth above 1.5x META's 0.40%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.89%
50-75% of META's 8.08%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-7.19%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.49%
We increase R&D while META cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-1.31%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 3.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.