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.
-15.87%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-18.83%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-33.47%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-33.47%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-33.30%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-33.33%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-33.20%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.09%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.24%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.10%
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.
21.12%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 109.40%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
49.37%
FCF growth 50-75% of SNAP's 93.93%. Martin Whitman would see if structural disadvantages exist in generating free cash.
1978.81%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4920.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
392.37%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4920.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
126.42%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 106.92%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
2631.90%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 105.90%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
536.45%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 105.90%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
123.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 102.71%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
1702.47%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
847.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
64.30%
3Y net income/share CAGR 50-75% of SNAP's 90.73%. Martin Whitman might see a lagging edge in short-term profitability vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
176.17%
Equity/share CAGR of 176.17% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
73.62%
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.
-23.42%
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.
3.75%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.12%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.19%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.56%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 8.69%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-9.99%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.