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.
20.23%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
21.23%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-21.33%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-21.33%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-13.22%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.35%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-16.67%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
6.27%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
6.51%
Slight or no buyback while SNAP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
26.84%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
39.16%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
199.10%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10775.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
199.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 155.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
199.10%
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.
172.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR in line with SNAP's 171.11%. Walter Schloss would see both as similarly efficient over the decade.
172.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 214.88%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
172.66%
3Y OCF/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 169.50%. Walter Schloss might see both benefiting from a rising tide or parallel expansions.
102.44%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
102.44%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 30.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
102.44%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 39.38%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
547.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 547.22% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
547.22%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
547.22%
Positive short-term equity growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
23.11%
AR growth well above SNAP's 0.63%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
66.13%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
59.93%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-16.19%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
82.73%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
50.71%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.