PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
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.
-6.45%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.65%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-30.35%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-30.35%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-32.12%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-23.23%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-23.23%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-12.94%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-16.35%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-13.53%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-103.69%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
66.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10775.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
66.25%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 155.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
66.25%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.98%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
46.83%
10Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 171.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a persistent underperformance in cash creation.
46.83%
Below 50% of SNAP's 214.88%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
46.83%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 169.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1.07%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1.07%
Below 50% of SNAP's 30.40%. Michael Burry would worry about a substantial lag vs. the competitor’s profit ramp-up.
1.07%
Below 50% of SNAP's 39.38%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
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.
-11.88%
Firm’s AR is declining while SNAP shows 0.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
13.47%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
31.24%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.28%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
23.39%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
15.96%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.