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.
-6.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.43%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
7.49%
Positive EBIT growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
7.49%
Positive operating income growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
14.38%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
15.06%
Positive EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
15.24%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.58%
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.
52.51%
Positive OCF growth while META is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
113.22%
FCF growth above 1.5x META's 9.43%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
465.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1386.70%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
147.88%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 171.50%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
57.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to META's 57.51%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
611.84%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1428.23%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
169.11%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 132.17%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
62.20%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 77.78%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
642.70%
Below 50% of META's 1875.09%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
297.90%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 471.78%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
43.12%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to META's 47.28%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
245.98%
Below 50% of META's 811.59%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
78.67%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 94.07%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
38.08%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x META's 26.51%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-7.11%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.23%
Positive asset growth while META is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.95%
Positive BV/share change while META is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.45%
We’re deleveraging while META stands at 1.07%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-6.59%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-30.55%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 9.14%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.