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.
-75.96%
Negative revenue growth while SAND stands at 2.71%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-75.96%
Negative gross profit growth while SAND is at 13.91%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-97.83%
Negative EBIT growth while SAND is at 26.92%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-97.83%
Negative operating income growth while SAND is at 8.63%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
182.08%
Net income growth above 1.5x SAND's 47.17%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
183.33%
EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 50.56%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
183.33%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SAND's 49.43%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
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.
28.32%
Positive OCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
28.32%
Positive FCF growth while SAND is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
6.51%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 34.25%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
6.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SAND's 75.49%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
6.51%
Positive 3Y CAGR while SAND is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
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.
-28.03%
Firm’s AR is declining while SAND shows 18.98%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
3.80%
Inventory growth of 3.80% while SAND is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-2.62%
Negative asset growth while SAND invests at 0.31%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-0.62%
We have a declining book value while SAND shows 2.17%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
339.85%
SG&A growth well above SAND's 2.94%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.