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.
19.58%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 85.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
21.48%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 37.91%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
36.02%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
36.02%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
31.41%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
35.85%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
36.54%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.59%
Share change of 0.59% while SNAP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.55%
Diluted share change of 0.55% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.21%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
19.02%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
506.49%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 856.39%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
506.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 856.39%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
203.17%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 856.39%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1990.83%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
1990.83%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
106.60%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
699.82%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
699.82%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
487.24%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
248.44%
Equity/share CAGR of 248.44% 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.
19.29%
AR growth of 19.29% 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.
7.04%
Asset growth of 7.04% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
6.23%
BV/share growth of 6.23% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
8.94%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 28.31%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
9.98%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 46.71%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.