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.
28.38%
Revenue growth similar to VET's 28.88%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
46.50%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 29.31%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
202.59%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 47.52%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
202.59%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 47.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
125.83%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 74.93%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
125.00%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 77.78%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
125.32%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 77.98%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
1.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 13.19%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.51%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 13.25%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-1.19%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 27.31%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
86.32%
OCF growth at 75-90% of VET's 106.95%. Bill Ackman would demand better working capital management or cost discipline.
401.67%
Positive FCF growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
-90.79%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-29.92%
Negative 5Y CAGR while VET stands at 4.57%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-15.32%
Negative 3Y CAGR while VET stands at 50.62%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-77.27%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-26.83%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 31.86%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
71.99%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of VET's 84.15%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
-99.14%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-83.96%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
102.78%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x VET's 86.84%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
-78.42%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while VET stands at 52.51%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-7.26%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while VET is at 6.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-14.91%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-96.32%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 17.18%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-89.89%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 63.23%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
-67.57%
Negative near-term dividend growth while VET invests at 176.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.
-16.54%
Firm’s AR is declining while VET shows 7.75%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.26%
Asset growth well under 50% of VET's 4.15%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
-1.23%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-0.03%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 12.29%. 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.
-9.70%
We cut SG&A while VET invests at 2.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.