PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
Orla Mining Ltd. (ORLA)
11.070.67 (6.44%)
10.50 - 11.12
3.81 - 12.83
1.80M / 1.61M (Avg.)
158.14 | 0.07
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
44.20%
Positive EBIT growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
44.20%
Positive operating income growth while DC is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
88.07%
Positive net income growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
88.24%
Positive EPS growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
88.24%
Positive diluted EPS growth while DC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
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.
139.30%
Positive OCF growth while DC is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
139.30%
Positive FCF growth while DC is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
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.
217.84%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while DC is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
217.84%
Positive OCF/share growth while DC is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
217.84%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x DC's 52.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
98.71%
Positive 10Y CAGR while DC is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
98.71%
Positive 5Y CAGR while DC is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
98.71%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x DC's 29.50%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-74.25%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while DC stands at 3427.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-74.25%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while DC is at 3427.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-74.25%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
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.
67.26%
AR growth of 67.26% while DC is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-12.24%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-14.77%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-44.21%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.