PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
215.00 - 235.00
210.00 - 590.00
2.95M / 482.4K (Avg.)
11.40 | 0.20
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
407.82%
10Y CAGR of 407.82% while VTU.L is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
164.56%
5Y CAGR of 164.56% while VTU.L is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
33.01%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to VTU.L's 30.22%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
-175.69%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while VTU.L stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
-132.01%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while VTU.L is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-138.62%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while VTU.L stands at 46.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
109.51%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 109.51% while VTU.L is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
69.66%
Net income/share CAGR of 69.66% while VTU.L is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
1736.70%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x VTU.L's 77.59%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.88%
Equity/share CAGR of 100.88% while VTU.L is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
0.73%
Below 50% of VTU.L's 32.45%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
-100.00%
Cut dividends over 10 years while VTU.L stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
-100.00%
Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while VTU.L stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.
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.
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.