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.
-15.79%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-16.44%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-17.01%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-17.01%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-17.73%
Negative net income growth while NEM stands at 1.94%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-21.88%
Negative EPS growth while NEM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-21.88%
Negative diluted EPS growth while NEM is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.02%
Share change of 0.02% while NEM is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
-0.01%
Reduced diluted shares while NEM is at 0.13%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-50.24%
Dividend reduction while NEM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
-15.45%
Negative OCF growth while NEM is at 51.28%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-32.66%
Negative FCF growth while NEM is at 748.94%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
5.30%
Positive 10Y revenue/share CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a distinct advantage in product or market expansion over the competitor.
17.64%
Positive 5Y CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-28.00%
Both firms have negative 3Y CAGR. Martin Whitman would wonder if the entire market segment is in short-term retreat.
13.22%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of NEM's 42.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
54.57%
5Y OCF/share CAGR is similar to NEM's 58.22%. Walter Schloss might see parallel cost profiles or expansions producing comparable cash flow.
-25.62%
Both face negative short-term OCF/share growth. Martin Whitman would suspect macro or cyclical issues hitting them both.
18.59%
Positive 10Y CAGR while NEM is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
235.00%
5Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x NEM's 173.05%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if a better product mix or cost discipline explains the gap.
-23.01%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
61.85%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x NEM's 3.60%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
29.21%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x NEM's 20.68%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
22.22%
Positive short-term equity growth while NEM is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
46.20%
10Y dividend/share CAGR at 75-90% of NEM's 60.65%. Bill Ackman might push for a stronger payout policy to match the competitor’s returns.
91.79%
5Y dividend/share CAGR at 50-75% of NEM's 180.53%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging policy in mid-term shareholder returns.
76.29%
3Y dividend/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x NEM's 59.80%. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the company's short-term profits or payout policy justify these higher hikes.
57.36%
Our AR growth while NEM is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
-50.99%
Both reduce inventory yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader move to lean operations or industry slowdown in demand.
0.02%
Positive asset growth while NEM is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-0.06%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.44%
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.
-11.84%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.