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.
4.54%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 14.99%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.76%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 29.29%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
8.44%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SNAP's 13.14%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
8.44%
Operating income growth under 50% of SNAP's 24.92%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
132.84%
Net income growth above 1.5x SNAP's 10.89%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
131.52%
EPS growth above 1.5x SNAP's 15.79%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
132.97%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SNAP's 15.79%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.06%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 2.26%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.03%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 2.26%. 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.
8.03%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 20.50%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
15.92%
FCF growth 75-90% of SNAP's 18.70%. Bill Ackman might push for improved capital allocation or operational changes to match the competitor.
1481.69%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 1309.78%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
404.64%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1309.78%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
156.16%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 153.96%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
1308.11%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 58.73%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
582.88%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 58.73%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
164.73%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 74.38%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2193.71%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
595.44%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
136.53%
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.
305.28%
Equity/share CAGR of 305.28% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
76.73%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 0.73%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
2.13%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 19.33%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
6.33%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 39.21%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
5.96%
75-90% of SNAP's 7.38%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
16.93%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 238.64%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
7.03%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-33.24%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.