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.
-5.04%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.91%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-1.07%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.07%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.74%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
2.63%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.19%
Share count expansion well above META's 0.29%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.26%
Diluted share count expanding well above META's 0.20%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.43%
OCF growth at 50-75% of META's 2.60%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
11.13%
FCF growth above 1.5x META's 3.44%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
504.57%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 818.13%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
118.84%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 452.25%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
56.18%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 183.63%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
600.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 1125.07%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
143.29%
Below 50% of META's 734.33%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
111.59%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 247.77%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
384.58%
Below 50% of META's 997.04%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
76.72%
Below 50% of META's 985.48%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
52.95%
Below 50% of META's 322.95%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
605.92%
Equity/share CAGR of 605.92% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
121.08%
Below 50% of META's 708.25%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
53.79%
Below 50% of META's 228.28%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
-8.87%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
4.48%
Inventory growth of 4.48% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.14%
Asset growth at 50-75% of META's 5.78%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
4.06%
75-90% of META's 4.75%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
0.05%
Debt growth of 0.05% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
8.83%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. META's 17.34%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-13.56%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 4.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.