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.
29.77%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 95.62%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
32.69%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SNAP's 18.87%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
75.46%
EBIT growth of 75.46% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can be scaled further.
75.46%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SNAP's 15.63%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
74.41%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
71.88%
EPS growth of 71.88% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
74.19%
Diluted EPS growth of 74.19% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.63%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.79%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.52%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.80%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
28.97%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
51.20%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
342.70%
10Y CAGR of 342.70% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
342.70%
5Y CAGR of 342.70% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
242.23%
3Y CAGR of 242.23% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
375.17%
OCF/share CAGR of 375.17% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
375.17%
OCF/share CAGR of 375.17% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
285.51%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 285.51% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
341.10%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 341.10% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
341.10%
Net income/share CAGR of 341.10% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
3256.17%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 3256.17% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
673.71%
Equity/share CAGR of 673.71% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
673.71%
Equity/share CAGR of 673.71% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
249.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 249.33% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
27.31%
AR growth of 27.31% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.32%
Asset growth of 6.32% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
6.08%
BV/share growth of 6.08% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-9.52%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
3.38%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 54.83%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.75%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.