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.
34.63%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of PAAS's 60.48%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
34.63%
Gross profit growth under 50% of PAAS's 806.80%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
315.91%
EBIT growth above 1.5x PAAS's 62.71%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
315.91%
Operating income growth above 1.5x PAAS's 62.71%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
460.42%
Net income growth above 1.5x PAAS's 59.96%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
-266.00%
Negative EPS growth while PAAS is at 61.01%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-266.00%
Negative diluted EPS growth while PAAS is at 61.01%. 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
4117.61%
Positive OCF growth while PAAS is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
4117.61%
Positive FCF growth while PAAS is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
48.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of PAAS's 72.61%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
48.45%
Positive 5Y CAGR while PAAS is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
-24.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while PAAS stands at 37.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3.15%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. PAAS's 34.48%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
7.29%
We show growth while PAAS is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
13.98%
Asset growth above 1.5x PAAS's 1.33%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
15.09%
Positive BV/share change while PAAS 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.
4.37%
SG&A declining or stable vs. PAAS's 37.29%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.