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%
Revenue growth similar to VET's 11.54%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
38.86%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 12.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
90.15%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 12.08%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
90.15%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 12.08%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
-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%
Share change of 3.13% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
3.61%
Diluted share change of 3.61% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
94.37%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 13.30%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
-18.13%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 218.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
93.40%
FCF growth under 50% of VET's 11141.33%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
922.82%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 1185.18%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
317.03%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 118.85%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
148.58%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 88.14%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1593.56%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 1245.95%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
149.24%
Below 50% of VET's 1168.24%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
28.04%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 380.46%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
18.73%
Below 50% of VET's 857.55%. 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 VET is 3154.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
389.91%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
716.56%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 272.72%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
256.54%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 79.25%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
105.09%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 43.19%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
1886.90%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1886.90% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a slight advantage in stepping up payouts steadily.
1566.52%
Dividend/share CAGR of 1566.52% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
856.44%
3Y dividend/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 10.93%. David Dodd sees a superior short-term capital return strategy if supported by stable earnings.
22.23%
Our AR growth while VET is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
21.79%
Inventory growth well above VET's 15.68%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.10%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 9.14%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-7.09%
We have a declining book value while VET shows 1.76%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.85%
Debt growth far above VET's 10.56%. 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%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 112.67%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.