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.
-16.07%
Negative revenue growth while VET stands at 1.71%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-15.51%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-37.21%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-37.21%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
133.62%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
131.25%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
131.25%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-1.96%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 3.57%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-18.66%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-52.08%
Negative FCF growth while VET is at 107.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-27.47%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 151.54%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-57.22%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 60.31%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-20.55%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 18.93%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
19.51%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of VET's 137.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
-60.24%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 3095.69%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-20.86%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET stands at 106.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
34.57%
Positive 10Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
14.92%
Below 50% of VET's 46.08%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
53.00%
Positive short-term CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
-25.90%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 177.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-71.54%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 85.27%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-60.18%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while VET is at 54.28%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
34.87%
Stable or rising dividend while VET is cutting. John Neff sees a strong advantage in consistent shareholder returns vs. a struggling peer.
-83.16%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
-66.20%
Both firms reduced dividends recently. Martin Whitman suspects broader macro or industry issues forcing cost and payout cuts.
-3.69%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-4.28%
Inventory is declining while VET stands at 27.13%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
8.90%
Asset growth at 50-75% of VET's 12.68%. Martin Whitman questions if the firm is lagging expansions or if the competitor invests more aggressively.
32.38%
BV/share growth above 1.5x VET's 6.65%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
-1.51%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 26.98%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.53%
SG&A declining or stable vs. VET's 17.67%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.