PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Metsä Board Oyj (METSA.HE)
5.520.06 (-1.08%)
5.46 - 5.56
4.95 - 8.28
1.7K / 2.4K (Avg.)
-276.00 | -0.02
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.
-8.10%
Negative revenue growth while HUH1V.HE stands at 0.44%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-23.17%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-51.00%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-51.00%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-70.84%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-70.53%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-70.53%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.28%
Share reduction while HUH1V.HE is at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.28%
Reduced diluted shares while HUH1V.HE is at 0.16%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-87.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-152.85%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-17.85%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while HUH1V.HE stands at 68.17%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-5.44%
Negative 5Y CAGR while HUH1V.HE stands at 33.42%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
2.58%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of HUH1V.HE's 31.70%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
449.55%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x HUH1V.HE's 73.72%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-57.69%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while HUH1V.HE is at 7.23%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-78.98%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-6.73%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-53.37%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-62.69%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
94.40%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of HUH1V.HE's 127.14%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
58.86%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x HUH1V.HE's 49.16%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
46.18%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x HUH1V.HE's 26.30%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
866.68%
Stable or rising dividend while HUH1V.HE is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
202.74%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while HUH1V.HE is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
162.32%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 162.32% while HUH1V.HE is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-14.09%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-6.68%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-10.10%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-2.73%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.42%
Debt shrinking faster vs. HUH1V.HE's 4.65%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.01%
SG&A growth well above HUH1V.HE's 7.94%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.