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.
11.20%
Positive revenue growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
38.86%
Positive gross profit growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
90.15%
Positive EBIT growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
90.15%
Positive operating income growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
-91.39%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-91.71%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-91.71%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
3.13%
Slight or no buybacks while MTDR is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
3.61%
Slight or no buyback while MTDR is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
94.37%
Dividend growth above 1.5x MTDR's 0.08%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-18.13%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
93.40%
Positive FCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
922.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MTDR's 690.14%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
317.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 1272.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
148.58%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
1593.56%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with MTDR's 1566.28%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
149.24%
Below 50% of MTDR's 362.73%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
28.04%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
18.73%
Below 50% of MTDR's 163.75%. Michael Burry would worry about a sizable gap in long-term profitability gains vs. the competitor.
-79.80%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while MTDR is 139.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
389.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
716.56%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 274.37%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
256.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MTDR's 204.54%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
105.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR similar to MTDR's 101.40%. Walter Schloss sees both having parallel profitability or reinvestment over 3 years.
1886.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1886.90% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1566.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1566.52% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
856.44%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 529.33%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
22.23%
AR growth well above MTDR's 2.38%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
21.79%
Inventory growth well above MTDR's 23.07%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.10%
Asset growth at 50-75% of MTDR's 1.79%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
-7.09%
We have a declining book value while MTDR shows 2.09%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.85%
Debt growth far above MTDR's 0.54%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
29.12%
We expand SG&A while MTDR cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.