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.
63.91%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x VET's 46.20%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
467.26%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x VET's 19.11%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
62.90%
EBIT growth above 1.5x VET's 30.52%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
62.90%
Operating income growth above 1.5x VET's 30.52%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
65.30%
Net income growth above 1.5x VET's 1.91%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
65.32%
EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 2.22%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
65.32%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x VET's 2.22%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-4.00%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
321.37%
OCF growth under 50% of VET's 1408.30%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
205.19%
FCF growth similar to VET's 226.03%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
-72.18%
Both companies have negative long-term revenue/share growth. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking.
-41.29%
Both face negative 5Y revenue/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect macro headwinds or obsolete product offerings across the niche.
3.54%
Positive 3Y CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
-78.91%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-29.56%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
3.45%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VET is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-242.27%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
20.35%
Below 50% of VET's 41.88%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
-487.55%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
-85.78%
Both are negative. Martin Whitman suspects the segment is in decline or saddled with persistent unprofitability or write-downs.
-58.07%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-53.19%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions for both players.
-90.75%
Both reduced dividends long-term. Martin Whitman might check if sector-level headwinds forced universal cuts.
-59.12%
Both lowered dividends mid-term. Martin Whitman might suspect broad sector constraints or strategic shifts from dividends.
28.42%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while VET cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
-6.53%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-9.75%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-25.90%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-2.85%
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.
-16.70%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.