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.
-9.50%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
8.09%
Positive gross profit growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-15.22%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-15.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
12.56%
Positive net income growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
14.68%
Positive EPS growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
14.47%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.98%
Share reduction while MTDR is at 0.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.72%
Reduced diluted shares while MTDR is at 0.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-6.54%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-9.04%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
14.63%
Positive FCF growth while MTDR is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
19.07%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 536.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
108.65%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 319.38%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
115.36%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to MTDR's 124.22%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-27.39%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while MTDR stands at 375.20%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
86.39%
Below 50% of MTDR's 430.61%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
25.77%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MTDR's 121.25%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1092.89%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 659.65% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
558.23%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x MTDR's 502.69%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
23446.77%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MTDR's 941.44%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
-13.60%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while MTDR stands at 283.39%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-10.17%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while MTDR is at 144.86%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-18.75%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while MTDR is at 67.21%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-78.01%
Cut dividends over 10 years while MTDR stands at 771086.76%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
205.07%
Dividend/share CAGR of 205.07% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
128.06%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 128.06% while MTDR is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-9.15%
Firm’s AR is declining while MTDR shows 8.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4.74%
Similar asset growth to MTDR's 4.70%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
19.76%
BV/share growth above 1.5x MTDR's 8.06%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-0.75%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.99%
We cut SG&A while MTDR invests at 25.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.