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.
-3.36%
Negative revenue growth while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
9.63%
Gross profit growth of 9.63% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal improvements could expand further.
17.56%
Positive EBIT growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
17.56%
Positive operating income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
9.89%
Positive net income growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-5.00%
Negative EPS growth while FSM is at 26.09%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-15.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FSM is at 26.09%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
10.37%
Share reduction more than 1.5x FSM's 274.03%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
20.16%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x FSM's 274.03%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-3.69%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
24.94%
10Y CAGR of 24.94% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
25016083.82%
5Y CAGR of 25016083.82% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
-0.92%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6533.86%
Positive OCF/share growth while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
505.38%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
133689.28%
Positive 5Y CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
637.84%
Positive short-term CAGR while FSM is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
432.02%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x FSM's 314.67%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
513.55%
AR growth well above FSM's 251.80%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
53.07%
Asset growth above 1.5x FSM's 0.55%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
38.01%
Positive BV/share change while FSM is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
111.86%
SG&A growth well above FSM's 43.65%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.