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.
32.96%
Revenue growth above 1.5x VET's 17.25%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
39.42%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 15.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
855.56%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 16.58%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
855.56%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 16.58%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
146.22%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 1.26%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
147.06%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 1.01%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
147.06%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 2.06%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
0.37%
Share change of 0.37% while VET is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.37%
Diluted share change of 0.37% while VET is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
30.29%
Dividend growth above 1.5x VET's 7.45%. David Dodd would verify if the firm's cash flow is robust enough for these payouts.
104.11%
OCF growth above 1.5x VET's 0.70%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
269.41%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
8.50%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 185.29%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
-58.41%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 79.64%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
12.78%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 44.74%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
5.78%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 321.56%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-47.84%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 124.62%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
48.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 22.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-34.62%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while VET is at 639.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-87.79%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while VET is 256.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
47.77%
Below 50% of VET's 229.75%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
-24.78%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 199.10%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-77.31%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 70.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-69.25%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 51.61%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
81.20%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-82.78%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-65.53%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-19.48%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 19.08%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-24.60%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-2.58%
Negative asset growth while VET invests at 4.92%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.32%
Under 50% of VET's 6.72%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-10.24%
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.
-15.91%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.