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.
-6.95%
Negative revenue growth while META stands at 5.36%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-10.97%
Negative gross profit growth while META is at 4.06%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-19.98%
Negative EBIT growth while META is at 1.19%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-19.98%
Negative operating income growth while META is at 1.19%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
1.80%
Net income growth under 50% of META's 5.63%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.00%
EPS growth under 50% of META's 5.81%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
4.08%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of META's 5.26%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
-0.68%
Share reduction while META is at 0.35%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.76%
Reduced diluted shares while META is at 0.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
22.20%
Positive OCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
57.95%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
424.42%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1682.61%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
116.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 355.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
49.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 105.45%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
526.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2466.59%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
100.74%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to META's 103.23%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
91.95%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while META is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
253.21%
Below 50% of META's 1742.00%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
77.39%
Below 50% of META's 613.49%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
100.54%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 36.41%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
376.74%
Equity/share CAGR of 376.74% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
85.85%
Below 50% of META's 175.82%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
41.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 70.25%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
-9.02%
Firm’s AR is declining while META shows 2.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-8.32%
Inventory is declining while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.86%
Asset growth above 1.5x META's 0.95%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.50%
50-75% of META's 4.52%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-4.94%
We’re deleveraging while META stands at 1.82%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.81%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 11.13%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-12.11%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 1.44%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.