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.
4.85%
Revenue growth under 50% of META's 10.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.19%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of META's 9.74%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
-60.11%
Negative EBIT growth while META is at 7.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-60.11%
Negative operating income growth while META is at 7.60%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-66.01%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 2.39%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-66.18%
Negative EPS growth while META is at 2.33%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-65.67%
Negative diluted EPS growth while META is at 2.96%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.04%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.27%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.97%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
7.18%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
449.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1139.17%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
121.66%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 519.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
81.20%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 216.63%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
418.39%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 3993.01%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
106.17%
Below 50% of META's 304.43%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
42.67%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 224.09%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
131.45%
Below 50% of META's 1683.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-5.24%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while META is 1209.36%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-20.06%
Negative 3Y CAGR while META is 590.77%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
464.92%
Equity/share CAGR of 464.92% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
96.69%
Below 50% of META's 445.63%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
42.55%
Below 50% of META's 94.63%. 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.
2.56%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. META's 9.29%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
9.75%
Inventory growth of 9.75% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.26%
Asset growth 1.25-1.5x META's 1.51%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's investments effectively outpace the competitor in future returns.
0.77%
Under 50% of META's 2.77%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-24.92%
We’re deleveraging while META stands at 23.47%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
1.49%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 12.73%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
2.54%
SG&A declining or stable vs. META's 11.86%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.