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.
68.88%
Positive revenue growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
144.69%
Positive gross profit growth while VET is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
2810.71%
Positive EBIT growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
2810.71%
Positive operating income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
7116.67%
Positive net income growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
7112.99%
Positive EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
7236.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.04%
Share reduction more than 1.5x VET's 0.38%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.80%
Reduced diluted shares while VET is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-4.04%
Dividend reduction while VET stands at 2.68%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-22.47%
Negative OCF growth while VET is at 26.25%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-243.59%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-57.55%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while VET stands at 15.41%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
23.45%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of VET's 34.77%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
52.64%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 11.35%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
141.75%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 76.68%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
-31.50%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is at 744.29%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
299.96%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x VET's 22.21%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
-83.91%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
114.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
-26.83%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-67.37%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-37.53%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
16.99%
Positive short-term equity growth while VET is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
-90.83%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VET stands at 12.59%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-63.16%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VET stands at 43.74%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
19.85%
Below 50% of VET's 85.76%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
4.80%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.08%
Positive asset growth while VET is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.59%
Positive BV/share change while VET is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-2.20%
We’re deleveraging while VET stands at 3.35%. 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.
2038.10%
SG&A growth well above VET's 0.63%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.