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.
-15.81%
Negative revenue growth while FSM stands at 15.12%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-23.27%
Negative gross profit growth while FSM is at 6.94%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-256.60%
Negative EBIT growth while FSM is at 43.97%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-256.60%
Negative operating income growth while FSM is at 43.97%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-317.43%
Negative net income growth while FSM stands at 358.27%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-315.38%
Negative EPS growth while FSM is at 600.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-315.38%
Negative diluted EPS growth while FSM is at 600.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.31%
Share count expansion well above FSM's 0.15%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
0.30%
Diluted share count expanding well above FSM's 0.20%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-7.56%
Negative OCF growth while FSM is at 510.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-8.06%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
205.89%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to FSM's 204.01%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
2.32%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of FSM's 20.81%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
-12.59%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM stands at 24.35%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
176.09%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with FSM's 194.01%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
-14.51%
Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while FSM is at 179.15%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.
-20.28%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while FSM stands at 1576.96%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-552.06%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while FSM is at 394.88%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-257.57%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while FSM is 182.58%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-302.57%
Negative 3Y CAGR while FSM is 698.28%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
161.66%
10Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of FSM's 247.86%. Martin Whitman would note a lag in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
17.18%
Below 50% of FSM's 87.71%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
3.49%
Below 50% of FSM's 86.71%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
13.77%
Dividend/share CAGR of 13.77% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor advantage in stepping up distributions, even modestly.
69.37%
3Y dividend/share CAGR of 69.37% while FSM is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees a minor positive difference that could attract dividend-focused investors.
-27.48%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
-3.67%
Negative asset growth while FSM invests at 3.34%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.48%
We have a declining book value while FSM shows 1.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
-7.41%
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.
-26.45%
We cut SG&A while FSM invests at 6.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.