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.
10.60%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of GTLB's 11.82%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
12.15%
Gross profit growth similar to GTLB's 11.82%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
3.51%
EBIT growth below 50% of GTLB's 12.77%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
3.51%
Operating income growth under 50% of GTLB's 12.77%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
8.91%
Net income growth under 50% of GTLB's 17.94%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
15.38%
EPS growth at 75-90% of GTLB's 17.50%. Bill Ackman would push for improved profitability or share repurchases to catch up.
15.38%
Diluted EPS growth at 75-90% of GTLB's 17.50%. Bill Ackman would expect further improvements in net income or share count reduction.
0.94%
Share count expansion well above GTLB's 0.73%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.94%
Diluted share count expanding well above GTLB's 0.73%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
65.15%
OCF growth at 50-75% of GTLB's 96.71%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
46.36%
FCF growth 50-75% of GTLB's 92.09%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
-28.72%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while GTLB stands at 138.52%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-28.72%
Negative 5Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 138.52%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-28.72%
Negative 3Y CAGR while GTLB stands at 138.52%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
85.08%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with GTLB's 92.46%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
85.08%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to GTLB's 92.46%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
85.08%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to GTLB's 92.46%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
13.77%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
13.77%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
13.77%
Positive short-term CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
171.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 171.36% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
171.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 171.36% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
171.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 171.36% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
17.31%
AR growth well above GTLB's 9.30%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
13.94%
Inventory growth well above GTLB's 2.65%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.37%
Asset growth above 1.5x GTLB's 0.43%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
-2.32%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-83.76%
We’re deleveraging while GTLB stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
19.41%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. GTLB's 4.03%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
2.14%
SG&A growth well above GTLB's 0.42%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.