PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
23.92%
Revenue growth under 50% of AEM's 76.00%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
42.28%
Gross profit growth under 50% of AEM's 167.88%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
51.76%
EBIT growth below 50% of AEM's 302.87%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
51.76%
Operating income growth under 50% of AEM's 302.87%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
41.64%
Net income growth under 50% of AEM's 111.45%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
37.50%
EPS growth under 50% of AEM's 109.09%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
37.50%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of AEM's 111.63%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.11%
Share reduction more than 1.5x AEM's 0.37%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.43%
Diluted share count expanding well above AEM's 0.46%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
-55.10%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
50.27%
OCF growth under 50% of AEM's 184.38%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
49.75%
FCF growth under 50% of AEM's 3520.87%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
153.70%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 70.25%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
80.52%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AEM's 72.92%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
48.97%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of AEM's 61.63%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
148.05%
10Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AEM's 104.04%. Bruce Berkowitz would confirm if the firm's long-term capital allocation yields better cash returns.
106.30%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AEM's 188.82%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
73.89%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of AEM's 127.85%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
65.93%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 26.82% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
240.67%
Below 50% of AEM's 15338.28%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
121.59%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of AEM's 193.72%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
115.16%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x AEM's 4.96%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
15.09%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 75-90% of AEM's 18.41%. Bill Ackman might push for an improved ROE or share repurchase strategy to keep up.
7.84%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x AEM's 6.57%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
102.78%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 75-90% of AEM's 132.53%. Bill Ackman wants more robust earnings or a higher payout ratio to match the competitor.
0.17%
Below 50% of AEM's 116.88%. Michael Burry suspects the firm invests elsewhere or can’t match the competitor’s dividend policy.
144.82%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. AEM's 887.70%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.70%
Negative asset growth while AEM invests at 1.57%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
2.37%
50-75% of AEM's 4.34%. Martin Whitman suspects weaker earnings or capital allocation vs. the competitor.
-23.76%
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.
-2.17%
We cut SG&A while AEM invests at 2.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.