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.
-8.82%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.45%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-27.15%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-27.15%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-14.07%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-14.52%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-14.05%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.29%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.20%
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.
2.60%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 7.59%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
3.44%
FCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 8.03%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
818.13%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2326.24%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
452.25%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2326.24%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
183.63%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2326.24%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
1125.07%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
734.33%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
247.77%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
997.04%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
985.48%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
322.95%
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.
708.25%
Equity/share CAGR of 708.25% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
228.28%
Equity/share CAGR of 228.28% 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.
-14.48%
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.
5.78%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 134.61%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.75%
Under 50% of SNAP's 161.83%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
17.34%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 1140.45%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
4.84%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 1090.56%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.