95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
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.
20.55%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of AEM's 37.64%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
20.55%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x AEM's 16.61%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
-8.75%
Negative EBIT growth while AEM is at 315.23%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-8.75%
Negative operating income growth while AEM is at 315.23%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-56.84%
Negative net income growth while AEM stands at 229.52%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-83.65%
Negative EPS growth while AEM is at 205.49%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-83.65%
Negative diluted EPS growth while AEM is at 221.79%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
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.
-92.10%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-92.10%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
26.10%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while AEM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
26.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 221.87%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
21.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of AEM's 211.89%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
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.
-10.50%
Firm’s AR is declining while AEM shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
2.99%
Inventory growth well above AEM's 5.28%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
1.10%
Asset growth well under 50% of AEM's 36.98%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
1.57%
Under 50% of AEM's 51.19%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
300.27%
SG&A growth well above AEM's 22.21%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.