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.
-269.22%
Negative EBIT growth while ITRG is at 30.99%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
100.00%
Operating income growth above 1.5x ITRG's 30.99%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-86.76%
Negative net income growth while ITRG stands at 54.06%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
22.89%
EPS growth under 50% of ITRG's 87.53%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
22.89%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of ITRG's 87.53%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive 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.
-253.81%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3005.64%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
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.
-80.31%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-80.31%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-253.02%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
94.22%
Similar net income/share CAGR to ITRG's 88.81%. Walter Schloss would see parallel tailwinds or expansions for both firms.
94.22%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to ITRG's 88.81%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
-349.23%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ITRG is 88.81%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
-80.51%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-80.51%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-24.33%
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.
498.50%
Our AR growth while ITRG is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
100.00%
We show growth while ITRG is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
1.48%
Asset growth well under 50% of ITRG's 123.10%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
6.35%
Under 50% of ITRG's 13.82%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
72.40%
We expand SG&A while ITRG cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.