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.
19.43%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 25.70%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
21.34%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 37.83%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
23.28%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
23.28%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
20.65%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
21.13%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
20.75%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.31%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.10%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.16%. 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.
-2.41%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 12.22%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.71%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 9.69%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1498.35%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 820.96%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
434.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 820.96%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
144.87%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 144.30%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
1427.15%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 64.95%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
460.10%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 64.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
88.51%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 71.24%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
1986.63%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
930.72%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
111.22%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
1668.76%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 58.88%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
173.28%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 58.88%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
74.67%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 7.37%. 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.
24.05%
AR growth well above SNAP's 31.57%. 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.
7.20%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 3.82%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
7.84%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
13.05%
Debt growth far above SNAP's 1.83%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
9.27%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 3.75%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
28.99%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 44.72%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.