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.
5.23%
Positive revenue growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
5.17%
Positive gross profit growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
8.63%
Positive EBIT growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
8.63%
Positive operating income growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
2.22%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2.90%
Positive EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
2.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.48%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.46%
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.
16.67%
OCF growth above 1.5x META's 6.38%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
14.19%
FCF growth similar to META's 13.25%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
550.37%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2515.65%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
199.58%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 323.62%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
101.72%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 115.61%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
527.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2045.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
167.94%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 303.30%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
102.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 91.78%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
573.61%
Below 50% of META's 3383.84%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
286.45%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 259.26%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
115.31%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 82.59%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
333.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 333.02% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
88.37%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 152.30%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
50.50%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 69.35%. 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.
5.93%
AR growth well above META's 3.33%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
40.90%
Inventory growth of 40.90% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.58%
Positive asset growth while META is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.44%
Positive BV/share change while META is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.72%
We’re deleveraging while META stands at 5.27%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.25%
R&D dropping or stable vs. META's 3.61%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.80%
SG&A declining or stable vs. META's 24.64%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.