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.
-0.85%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-4.16%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-11.92%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-11.92%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-13.07%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-12.30%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-12.40%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-1.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.07%
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.
20.24%
Positive OCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
27.66%
Positive FCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
394.18%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1881.51%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
165.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 195.56%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
81.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 68.19%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
488.24%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 3397.72%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
152.32%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 74.19%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
60.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 11.55%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
544.72%
Below 50% of META's 6821.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
120.39%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 2.91%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
109.80%
Positive short-term CAGR while META is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
276.02%
Below 50% of META's 689.98%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
72.20%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 91.95%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
38.68%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to META's 41.42%. 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.
-2.42%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
59.39%
Inventory growth of 59.39% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
0.86%
Asset growth well under 50% of META's 5.37%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
0.58%
Positive BV/share change while META is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.68%
Debt shrinking faster vs. META's 61.20%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
4.39%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. META's 5.52%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.32%
SG&A declining or stable vs. META's 8.84%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.