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.
-3.64%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-2.09%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.40%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-0.40%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
411.29%
Net income growth above 1.5x META's 16.85%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
409.09%
EPS growth above 1.5x META's 17.01%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
404.55%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x META's 17.36%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.08%
Slight or no buybacks while META is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
1.52%
Slight or no buyback while META is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
13.38%
OCF growth above 1.5x META's 2.48%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
-27.14%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
441.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1265.41%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
112.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 590.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
76.86%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 223.40%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
489.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1800.35%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
204.81%
Below 50% of META's 819.34%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
72.42%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 342.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
548.26%
Below 50% of META's 1685.31%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
167.25%
Below 50% of META's 1832.70%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
162.10%
Below 50% of META's 838.17%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
495.60%
Equity/share CAGR of 495.60% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
102.69%
Below 50% of META's 452.07%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
45.33%
Below 50% of META's 98.19%. 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.
-10.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-15.09%
Inventory is declining while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.89%
Similar asset growth to META's 5.23%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
5.37%
1.25-1.5x META's 4.72%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
33.59%
Debt growth of 33.59% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
17.02%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. META's 14.83%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-7.34%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 14.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.