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.
3.30%
Revenue growth under 50% of VET's 9.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-17.94%
Negative gross profit growth while VET is at 12.23%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-40.26%
Negative EBIT growth while VET is at 20.61%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-40.26%
Negative operating income growth while VET is at 20.61%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
15.45%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.59%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.59%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET 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.
-0.73%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.25%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-3.02%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-507.40%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
352.51%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 999.07%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
436.36%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 107.18%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
139.13%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 27.27%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
469.32%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 196.96%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
599.52%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 4.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
162.89%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1390.71%
Net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 1205.96%. Bruce Berkowitz might see more effective use of capital or consistently better margins over time.
694.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 162.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
-34.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET is 173.32%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
460.83%
10Y equity/share CAGR in line with VET's 460.76%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from stable profitability and moderate payout ratios over the decade.
379.31%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 62.38%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
126.78%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 42.93%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
961.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 961.77% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
912.89%
Dividend/share CAGR of 912.89% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
408.06%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-2.47%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 23.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
6.74%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. VET's 25.56%. David Dodd confirms the company’s supply-chain is more efficient if sales are unaffected.
7.98%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.26%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
31.58%
We have some new debt while VET 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.
65.26%
We expand SG&A while VET cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.