PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Samsara Inc. (IOT)
33.600.80 (-2.33%)
33.44 - 34.57
31.40 - 61.90
7.61M / 5.95M (Avg.)
-152.73 | -0.22
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.
7.63%
Revenue growth under 50% of GTLB's 15.60%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.06%
Gross profit growth under 50% of GTLB's 13.48%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
4.87%
Positive EBIT growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
4.87%
Positive operating income growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
9.45%
Positive net income growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
7.14%
Positive EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7.14%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.88%
Share count expansion well above GTLB's 0.79%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.88%
Diluted share count expanding well above GTLB's 0.79%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
24.20%
Positive OCF growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
27.27%
Positive FCF growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-26.87%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GTLB stands at 163.60%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-26.87%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 163.60%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-26.87%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 163.60%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
60.31%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
60.31%
Positive OCF/share growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
60.31%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1.38%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1.38%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
1.38%
Positive short-term CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
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.
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.
-8.79%
Firm’s AR is declining while GTLB shows 33.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-6.99%
Inventory is declining while GTLB stands at 4.07%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-1.03%
Negative asset growth while GTLB invests at 1.50%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-1.83%
We have a declining book value while GTLB shows 0.69%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-4.00%
We’re deleveraging while GTLB stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
2.10%
R&D dropping or stable vs. GTLB's 24.16%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.53%
SG&A declining or stable vs. GTLB's 28.43%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.