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.
-10.86%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-13.15%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-19.22%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-19.22%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-64.71%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-64.58%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-64.29%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.98%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.59%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.19%. 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.
21.13%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 47.50%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
64.89%
FCF growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 47.58%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capex decisions or cost controls create a cash flow advantage.
1672.63%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3600.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
447.59%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3600.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
183.80%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 526.34%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
2218.77%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 33.94%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
558.24%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 33.94%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
216.11%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 45.77%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
795.97%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
245.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
42.07%
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.
369.73%
Equity/share CAGR of 369.73% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
85.89%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 114.96%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
-14.66%
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.
12.48%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 4.11%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.86%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
1342.00%
Debt growth of 1342.00% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.18%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 31.47%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
76.71%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 4.54%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.