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.
12.00%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 21.10%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
10.75%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 47.89%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
4.89%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 18.13%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
4.89%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 3.56%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
7.70%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 17.79%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
8.24%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 17.39%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
7.06%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 17.39%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.60%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.64%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.21%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.64%. 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.
-7.45%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-8.94%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1511.89%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3756.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
425.85%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3756.80%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
165.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 303.27%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
5605.55%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 5.39%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
482.17%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 5.39%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
172.88%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 46.70%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
831.23%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
200.84%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
16.43%
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.
338.44%
Equity/share CAGR of 338.44% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
78.46%
Positive short-term equity growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
16.03%
AR growth well above SNAP's 11.01%. 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.
6.88%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.99%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
8.32%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
15.91%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 9.26%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-7.33%
We cut SG&A while SNAP invests at 11.37%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.