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.
-28.37%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-23.08%
Negative gross profit growth while FNV is at 325.48%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-19.72%
Negative EBIT growth while FNV is at 325.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-19.72%
Negative operating income growth while FNV is at 344.50%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-24.94%
Negative net income growth while FNV stands at 206.95%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-24.00%
Negative EPS growth while FNV is at 204.35%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-26.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FNV is at 204.35%. 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.
-100.00%
Dividend reduction while FNV stands at 15.20%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-34.81%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-787.15%
Negative FCF growth while FNV is at 122.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
565.78%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 145.53%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
164.81%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x FNV's 145.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
131.26%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to FNV's 122.26%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
89499.57%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 375.78%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
215.34%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of FNV's 375.78%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
177.71%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 68.61%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
7607.09%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 323.14% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
200.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of FNV's 323.14%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
188.75%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of FNV's 251.79%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
3166.37%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 27.31%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
149.57%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 27.31%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
75.26%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x FNV's 20.40%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
-23.73%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
37.97%
Positive asset growth while FNV is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.82%
Positive BV/share change while FNV is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2077.39%
Debt growth of 2077.39% while FNV is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
23.73%
We expand SG&A while FNV cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.