Loading institutional data...
Loading institutional data...
Insufficient data to determine institutional momentum.
Data as of Q3 2026
Loading snapshot...
Loading financials...
Loading valuation...
Loading analysis...
Loading dividends & returns...
Loading capital allocation...
Loading debt & leverage...
Loading performance...
Loading peer comparison...
Loading insider activity...
Loading ownership map...
Loading crowding analysis...
Loading conviction analysis...
Loading buy/sell flow...
Loading ownership trends...
Loading top holders...
Loading top holders...
Total shares institutions bought (green) vs sold (red) each quarter across all holders.
Inferred from quarter-over-quarter change in each fund's 13F position (new stakes count as buys, exits as sells). Not tick-level trades.
Top 1 institutional holders — bubble size is position value, color is the move since last quarter. Hover any holder for detail.
Drag any bubble to rearrange · size = dollar value of the position
Ranked against 22 sector peers with collected financials. Valuation from latest close × latest fiscal-year fundamentals; 13F conviction as of 2026-09-30.
Percentile is “goodness” within the peer set (100 = best). For valuation and leverage that means cheaper / less-levered ranks higher.
| Company | Mkt cap ▼ | P/E | EV/EBITDA | P/S | Rev gr | Gross | Net | ROE | ROIC | Net D/EBITDA | 13F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCK | $114.4B | 25.6× | 18.0× | 0.3× | 12.4% | 3.6% | 1.2% | -219% | 109% | 0.4× | 672 |
| COR | $63.1B | 41.5× | 18.0× | 0.2× | 9.3% | 3.6% | 0.5% | 103% | 17.0% | 0.9× | — |
| CAH | $58.1B | 34.7× | 14.9× | 0.2× | 14.2% | 3.8% | 0.7% | -59.5% | -59.5% | -1.4× | 463 |
| SYY | $40.6B | 22.6× | 9.9× | 0.5× | 3.9% | 18.5% | 2.1% | 65.9% | 65.9% | -0.5× | 516 |
| USFD | $22.2B | 35.0× | 16.5× | 0.6× | 4.1% | 17.4% | 1.7% | 15.7% | 7.1% | 3.1× | 154 |
| PFGC | $15.3B | 42.6× | 14.2× | 0.2× | 7.2% | 11.9% | 0.5% | 7.3% | 3.6% | 3.4× | 125 |
| DPZ | $10.3B | 17.8× | — | 2.1× | 5.0% | 40.0% | 12.2% | -15.4% | -15.5% | — | 181 |
| CHEF | $4.4B | 60.5× | 25.4× | 1.1× | 9.4% | 24.2% | 1.7% | 12.0% | 5.3% | 3.2× | 66 |
| SEB | $3.7B | 7.5× | 8.1× | 0.4× | 7.1% | 7.1% | 5.1% | 9.6% | 8.1% | 1.4× | 32 |
| ASH | $3.4B | — | — | 1.9× | -13.7% | 30.1% | -46.3% | -44.4% | -25.7% | — | 73 |
| HWKN | $3.2B | 39.3× | 19.8× | 3.0× | 11.2% | 22.6% | 7.5% | 15.3% | 10.5% | 1.4× | 55 |
| CENT | $2.8B | 17.7× | 9.3× | 0.9× | -2.2% | 31.9% | 5.2% | 10.3% | 5.9% | 0.9× | 35 |
| UNFI | $2.8B | 34.4× | 8.4× | 0.1× | -2.0% | 13.5% | 0.3% | 5.2% | 2.6% | 3.0× | 63 |
| ANDE | $2.1B | — | — | 0.2× | -2.2% | 6.5% | 0.9% | 7.7% | 4.7% | — | 72 |
| VSTS | $2.0B | — | 15.1× | 0.7× | -2.5% | — | -1.5% | -4.6% | -2.0% | 5.4× | 54 |
| WKC | $1.9B | — | — | 0.1× | -12.5% | 2.6% | -1.7% | -47.3% | -30.8% | — | 63 |
| HLF | $1.4B | 5.9× | 5.2× | 0.3× | 0.9% | 77.9% | 4.5% | -44.3% | 15.5% | 2.8× | 33 |
| UVV | $1.0B | 31.6× | 8.4× | 0.3× | -1.3% | 16.4% | 1.1% | 2.3% | 1.4% | 3.8× | 45 |
| CAPL | $868M | 22.3× | 8.3× | 0.2× | -10.6% | 11.0% | 1.1% | — | — | 3.7× | 11 |
| AGCC | $652M | 397.8× | — | — | 145% | 30.4% | 9.8% | 6.2% | 2.7% | — | — |
| WEYS | $501M | 21.8× | 12.8× | 1.8× | -4.9% | 43.2% | 8.4% | 9.6% | 9.6% | -3.0× | 16 |
| WILC | $386M | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 |
| NUS | $228M | 1.5× | 1.8× | 0.1× | -14.3% | 69.4% | 10.8% | 19.9% | 15.6% | -0.1× | 27 |
Peers = companies sharing WILC's sector (Wholesale-Groceries, General Line) with collected SEC financials. Multiples use the most recent end-of-day close and latest fiscal-year fundamentals (trailing, not forward). Missing cells mean the peer never reported that line item, has no collected price, or has a non-positive denominator. Not investment advice.
What the company returns to shareholders — and whether it's covered by cash.
No dividend to cover. Last year: $0 dividends + $0 buybacks = $0 returned.
Yields use the latest fiscal-year dividends/buybacks over current market cap. Dividends and buybacks from the SEC cash-flow statement; payout coverage vs net income and free cash flow. Educational — not a recommendation.
EOD close · as of 2026-09-03 · 59d old
How a revenue dollar becomes profit — FY2025
Each value shows its share of revenue below it (common-size).
| Line Item | FY2025 | FY2024 | FY2023 | FY2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of Revenue | $136.6M | $414.5M | $422.7M | $355.2M |
| Gross Profit | $54.8M | $161.3M | $120.6M | $143.1M |
| Selling, General & Admin | $9.0M | $26.2M | $26.1M | $24.1M |
| Net Income | $28.3M | $70.3M | $31.7M | $41.6M |
Source: SEC EDGAR XBRL filings (annual, fiscal year). Quarterly flow items are derived from cumulative filings; balance-sheet figures are as-of each period end. Ratios and margins are computed, not reported.
Solve the discounted cash flow backwards, then stress-test the assumptions.
This company doesn't have positive free cash flow on any basis, so a reverse DCF can't be run.
How much the company owes, how it's trended, and how comfortably it's serviced.
Insufficient EBITDA/debt history.
Green ≤ 1.5× · amber ≤ 3× · red > 3× (leverage relative to cash earnings).
Interest expense isn't separately reported — often netted into “other income (expense), net.”
Cash vs short-term debt unavailable.
Short-term / long-term split not separately reported.
Debt, cash, interest and equity from the SEC balance sheet & income statement. Effective rate = interest ÷ average debt. Educational — not a recommendation.
Total return (dividends reinvested) vs the market, from quarter-end prices.
Above 0 = ahead of the S&P 500 since the window start; below 0 = behind. Rising means it's pulling ahead.
How far the stock fell below its prior peak. Deeper, longer drawdowns = a rougher ride to the same return.
Quarter-end, dividend-adjusted (total return). Beta & volatility from quarterly returns (annualized). Benchmark is the S&P 500 (SPY total return). Annual returns compound the quarters ending in each calendar year; the first and last years in a window may be partial. Past performance doesn't predict future results.
EOD close · as of 2026-09-03
Where each multiple sits in its own 4-yr range · 50th pct blended
Dot = today · shaded = middle 50% · line = median. Lower percentile = cheaper vs its own 4-yr history.
Is the profit real, and how strong is the balance sheet?
FY2025 · every deduction from revenue to net income
DuPont — the three levers
ROIC is not available for this period, so the share of ROE attributable to leverage cannot be separated out.
What the company owes vs. what it holds
This shows debt/cash structure and net leverage. The year-by-year maturity schedule is on the Debt & Leverage tab.
Latest year: profit growth vs revenue growth
Operating leverage needs meaningful revenue change.
Each line as % of revenue — the trend in color
| % of revenue | FY2022 | FY2023 | FY2024 | FY2025 |
|---|
Green = margin-favorable vs the row's own range · red = unfavorable.
The metrics that matter, over time
A 30-second read on WILC: price, valuation and headline fundamentals from SEC filings. The four questions at the top of the page are where the judgements live.
No positive operating income in the last three years, so there is no return on capital to compare against its cost.
No material counter-signal in the checked set: ROIC vs WACC spread, 5-year spread history, gross margin trend, operating margin trend, net margin against 3 years ago, revenue growth, ROIC ex-goodwill gap.
Missing from our data, so excluded from this answer: tax_rate.
Fewer than three profitable years with a cash flow statement, so cash conversion cannot be judged.
No material counter-signal in the checked set: FCF / net income over 3 and 5 years, Sloan accruals, SBC as a share of revenue, SBC as a share of operating cash flow, SBC-adjusted free cash flow, free cash flow per diluted share, buybacks against SBC issued, capex vs depreciation, free cash flow against revenue, share count since the first year on file, cash conversion cycle (DSO, DIO, DPO), receivables growth against revenue growth.
Missing from our data, so excluded from this answer: 3 years of cash flow.
No debt, so there is no leverage path to distress.
No material counter-signal in the checked set: net debt / EBITDA, interest coverage, stressed coverage, maturity schedule vs cash and one year of FCF, liquidity ratios.
No positive free cash flow to discount, so the price cannot be expressed as a growth requirement.
No material counter-signal in the checked set: reverse-DCF implied growth, historical FCF CAGR, per-year FCF growth distribution, reporting-basis breaks, discount rate used, free-cash-flow basis (stock comp charged?).
Missing from our data, so excluded from this answer: free_cash_flow.