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.
15.67%
Revenue growth similar to META's 16.07%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
12.91%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of META's 17.57%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
4.06%
EBIT growth below 50% of META's 20.74%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
4.06%
Operating income growth under 50% of META's 20.74%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
9.01%
Net income growth at 75-90% of META's 11.87%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements to catch or surpass competitor performance.
9.86%
EPS growth at 50-75% of META's 13.76%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
9.29%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of META's 14.29%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.46%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.60%
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.
-2.37%
Negative OCF growth while META is at 28.48%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-0.90%
Negative FCF growth while META is at 30.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
596.44%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 2514.07%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
200.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 300.48%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
101.22%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to META's 105.40%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
521.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 3016.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
175.78%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 284.75%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
101.44%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 143.10%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
646.97%
Below 50% of META's 2890.34%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
302.98%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 202.70%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
142.04%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 54.20%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
323.46%
Below 50% of META's 2138.24%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
88.43%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 121.04%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
48.63%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to META's 53.16%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
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.
12.94%
AR growth well above META's 16.14%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-8.45%
Inventory is declining while META stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.42%
Positive asset growth while META is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.37%
Positive BV/share change while META is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1.74%
Debt shrinking faster vs. META's 9.75%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
13.18%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. META's 11.56%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
33.88%
SG&A growth well above META's 18.34%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.