PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
40.40 - 41.05
29.80 - 47.18
2.12M / 3.66M (Avg.)
18.02 | 2.27
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.
-72.53%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-106.81%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-634.78%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-634.78%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-1141.09%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-1141.36%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-1141.36%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.17%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while AR cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-79.33%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
39.73%
Positive FCF growth while AR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-71.94%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AR stands at 1169.91%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-43.36%
Negative 5Y CAGR while AR stands at 84.78%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-49.79%
Negative 3Y CAGR while AR stands at 6.27%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-92.56%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while AR stands at 86.18%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-74.58%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-59.80%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-392.82%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while AR is at 5.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-76.29%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-1091.85%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-80.13%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-51.35%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while AR is at 21.61%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-35.15%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.34%
Cut dividends over 10 years while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-56.24%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while AR stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
33.76%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 33.76% while AR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-9.41%
Firm’s AR is declining while AR shows 6.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-21.90%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-42.37%
We have a declining book value while AR shows 3.56%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
4.38%
We have some new debt while AR reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
18.71%
SG&A growth well above AR's 21.66%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.