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.
10.57%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 13.70%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
9.74%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 108.75%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
7.60%
EBIT growth similar to SNAP's 8.34%. Walter Schloss might infer both firms share similar operational efficiencies.
7.60%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 8.84%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
2.39%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 8.42%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.33%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 10.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
2.96%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 10.00%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.49%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.36%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-19.86%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 14.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-43.74%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 12.71%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1139.17%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2643.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
519.44%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2643.10%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
216.63%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2643.10%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
3993.01%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
304.43%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
224.09%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
1683.32%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
1209.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
590.77%
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.
445.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 445.63% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
94.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 94.63% 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.
9.29%
AR growth well above SNAP's 5.79%. 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.
1.51%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.77%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
23.47%
Debt growth of 23.47% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
12.73%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 1.12%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
11.86%
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.