PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
1.90 - 2.15
0.48 - 2.54
9.88M / 3.06M (Avg.)
-0.59 | -3.40
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.
78.38%
Revenue growth of 78.38% while ACB.TO is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a small edge can widen further.
140.18%
Gross profit growth of 140.18% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
12.00%
EBIT growth below 50% of ACB.TO's 4015.87%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
12.00%
Positive operating income growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
14.27%
Net income growth under 50% of ACB.TO's 3882.85%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
13.68%
Positive EPS growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
13.68%
Positive diluted EPS growth while ACB.TO 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
38.10%
Positive OCF growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-23.74%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-428.58%
Both show negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would question if the entire market or product set is shrinking or too capital-intensive.
-428.58%
Both show negative mid-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman might suspect a challenged environment or large capital demands for both.
-428.58%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
-115.04%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while ACB.TO is at 17125.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-115.04%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while ACB.TO is 8923.63%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-115.04%
Negative 3Y CAGR while ACB.TO is 2229.28%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
123.15%
Positive growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a strong advantage in steadily compounding net worth over a decade.
123.15%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
123.15%
Positive short-term equity growth while ACB.TO is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
50.45%
AR growth well above ACB.TO's 12.40%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
11.96%
Inventory growth of 11.96% while ACB.TO is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-4.73%
Negative asset growth while ACB.TO invests at 32.94%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-9.17%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-5.27%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.