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.
2.80%
Revenue growth under 50% of META's 6.71%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.82%
Gross profit growth under 50% of META's 7.22%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.27%
Negative EBIT growth while META is at 47.54%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.27%
Negative operating income growth while META is at 47.54%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
7.19%
Net income growth under 50% of META's 48.73%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
8.28%
EPS growth under 50% of META's 48.51%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
7.64%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of META's 47.32%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.69%
Share reduction while META is at 0.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.53%
Reduced diluted shares while META is at 1.11%. 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.
6.94%
OCF growth under 50% of META's 17.87%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
3.78%
FCF growth under 50% of META's 24.93%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
446.22%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1550.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
151.44%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 181.29%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
79.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to META's 78.49%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
539.72%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1992.69%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
156.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 207.78%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
94.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 132.98%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
603.17%
Below 50% of META's 2574.63%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
136.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 154.98%. Bill Ackman would advocate improvements to match competitor’s profit expansion.
89.09%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 65.68%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
249.18%
Below 50% of META's 966.99%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
77.94%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 101.10%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
38.59%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to META's 36.20%. 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.
5.71%
AR growth well above META's 3.46%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
32.54%
Inventory growth of 32.54% while META is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.57%
Asset growth at 75-90% of META's 4.64%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
2.98%
Under 50% of META's 6.26%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.45%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.33%
We increase R&D while META cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.86%
We expand SG&A while META cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.