PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
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.
5.36%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
4.06%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
1.19%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
1.19%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
5.63%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.81%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.26%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.35%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.45%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.38%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.45%. 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.
-64.75%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-91.63%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1682.61%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4150.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
355.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4150.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
105.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 111.36%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
2466.59%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 38.10%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
103.23%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 38.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
-25.86%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP stands at 73.15%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
1742.00%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
613.49%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
36.41%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 37.80%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
175.82%
Equity/share CAGR of 175.82% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
70.25%
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.
2.66%
Our AR growth while SNAP is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.95%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 20.66%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.52%
BV/share growth above 1.5x SNAP's 1.80%. David Dodd confirms if consistent profit retention or fewer write-downs yield faster equity creation.
1.82%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 57.84%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
11.13%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 9.32%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
1.44%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58