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.
-6.46%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-3.55%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
29.50%
Positive EBIT growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
-1.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
30.16%
Positive net income growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
30.88%
Positive EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
30.70%
Positive diluted EPS growth while META is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.37%
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.
0.04%
Dividend growth under 50% of META's 4.94%. Michael Burry might suspect more pressing needs for cash or weaker earnings power.
-7.58%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-23.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
484.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1232.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
147.06%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 170.63%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
43.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 63.50%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
510.68%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of META's 1476.83%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
255.76%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 147.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
56.04%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 84.06%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
998.41%
Below 50% of META's 3548.30%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
469.40%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x META's 285.17%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
127.74%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to META's 140.43%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
255.88%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of META's 450.49%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
91.05%
5Y equity/share CAGR is in line with META's 99.33%. Walter Schloss would see parallel mid-term profitability and retention policies.
47.31%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of META's 61.92%. Bill Ackman pushes for margin or operational changes to match the competitor’s pace.
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.
-2.56%
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.
5.58%
Asset growth above 1.5x META's 1.51%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
6.60%
BV/share growth above 1.5x META's 1.59%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-7.45%
We’re deleveraging while META stands at 0.94%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.35%
We increase R&D while META cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-17.48%
We cut SG&A while META invests at 25.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.