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.
20.86%
Revenue growth above 1.5x WEED.TO's 10.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
30.04%
Gross profit growth under 50% of WEED.TO's 71.07%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-72.06%
Negative EBIT growth while WEED.TO is at 84.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-130.61%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-61.23%
Negative net income growth while WEED.TO stands at 81.19%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
100.00%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 84.62%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
100.00%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 84.62%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
-100.00%
Share reduction while WEED.TO is at 21.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-100.00%
Reduced diluted shares while WEED.TO is at 21.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-122.31%
Negative OCF growth while WEED.TO is at 68.82%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-232.20%
Negative FCF growth while WEED.TO is at 67.42%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-100.00%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 1039.49%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 25.46%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-100.00%
Negative 3Y CAGR while WEED.TO stands at 43.99%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
100.00%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 15.32%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
100.00%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 83.25%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
100.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x WEED.TO's 84.45%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
100.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while WEED.TO is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
100.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x WEED.TO's 26.50%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
100.00%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to WEED.TO's 95.79%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
-100.00%
Negative equity/share CAGR over 10 years while WEED.TO stands at 207.79%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental red flag unless the competitor also struggles.
-100.00%
Both show negative equity/share growth mid-term. Martin Whitman suspects cyclical or structural challenges for each company.
-100.00%
Both show negative short-term equity/share CAGR. Martin Whitman suspects an industry slump or unprofitable expansions 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.53%
Our AR growth while WEED.TO is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
2.84%
We show growth while WEED.TO is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
-39.05%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-100.00%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.41%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-60.00%
Our R&D shrinks while WEED.TO invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
12.05%
SG&A declining or stable vs. WEED.TO's 245.39%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.