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.
-2.78%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
1.28%
Positive gross profit growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
5.02%
Positive EBIT growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.02%
Positive operating income growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
17.75%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
17.70%
Positive EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.96%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.35%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.13%
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.
-14.94%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-22.39%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
516.16%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2955.33%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
178.82%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 389.16%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
83.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 123.77%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
480.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2928.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
157.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 312.83%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
71.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 59.35%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
852.54%
Below 50% of META's 3378.45%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
335.18%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 451.58%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
96.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to META's 94.84%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
349.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 349.75% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
90.07%
Below 50% of META's 185.16%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
47.61%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 76.17%. 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.
-9.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
21.98%
Inventory growth of 21.98% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.34%
Asset growth at 75-90% of META's 2.64%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
3.72%
75-90% of META's 4.62%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
0.76%
Debt shrinking faster vs. META's 9.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
6.59%
We increase R&D while META cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-10.51%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.