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.
-7.86%
Negative revenue growth while SNAP stands at 18.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-9.43%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.48%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-21.48%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
11.45%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
-3.64%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 23.08%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-3.70%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 23.08%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
1.04%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 34.33%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.94%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 34.33%. 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.
5.52%
OCF growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 9.67%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing sales effectively.
-13.30%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 1.59%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
524.61%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to SNAP's 490.85%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
524.61%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 490.85%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
215.74%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 490.85%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
633.53%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
633.53%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
254.86%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
530.63%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.71% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
530.63%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
582.69%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.71%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
241.08%
Equity/share CAGR of 241.08% 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.
-8.25%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
5.40%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.53%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-100.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
2.21%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
4.29%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 90.77%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.