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.
1.61%
Revenue growth under 50% of GTLB's 3.30%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.34%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x GTLB's 1.77%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
-21.46%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.46%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
50.35%
Positive net income growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
52.38%
Positive EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
52.38%
Positive diluted EPS growth while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.99%
Share count expansion well above GTLB's 0.99%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.99%
Diluted share count expanding well above GTLB's 0.99%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
156.52%
OCF growth above 1.5x GTLB's 53.45%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
142.32%
FCF growth above 1.5x GTLB's 52.66%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
35.77%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of GTLB's 380.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
35.77%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of GTLB's 380.20%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
35.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of GTLB's 183.86%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
127.09%
10Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GTLB's 222.68%. Martin Whitman might fear a structural deficiency in operational efficiency.
127.09%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GTLB's 222.68%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
127.09%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of GTLB's 248.46%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
37.87%
Positive 10Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
37.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
37.87%
Positive short-term CAGR while GTLB is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-5.83%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while GTLB stands at 63.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-5.83%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while GTLB is at 63.81%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-5.83%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while GTLB is at 145.61%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
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.
-8.06%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
37.20%
Inventory growth of 37.20% while GTLB is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
0.84%
Positive asset growth while GTLB is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.04%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-5.90%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-0.62%
Our R&D shrinks while GTLB invests at 3.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
9.02%
SG&A growth well above GTLB's 15.99%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.