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.
14.89%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 49.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
16.27%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 89.28%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
34.83%
EBIT growth 75-90% of SNAP's 43.52%. Bill Ackman would push for cost reforms or better product mix to narrow the gap.
34.83%
Operating income growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 45.96%. Bill Ackman would demand a plan to enhance operating leverage.
51.53%
Net income growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 38.69%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic cost cutting or product mix explains this difference.
51.10%
EPS growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 39.13%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if strategic initiatives like cost cutting or better capital management explain the difference.
50.56%
Diluted EPS growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 39.13%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if strategic moves (e.g., targeted acquisitions, cost cuts) explain the edge.
0.50%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.34%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.56%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 1.34%. 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.
153.43%
OCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 17.62%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
885.39%
FCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 15.51%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
1811.89%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to SNAP's 1937.43%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
369.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1937.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
112.42%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 174.43%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
1377.74%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 71.76%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
341.54%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 71.76%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
63.88%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 76.24%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
2836.32%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
767.19%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
70.44%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 62.08%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
179.91%
Equity/share CAGR of 179.91% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
68.94%
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.
7.23%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 39.79%, 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.
4.83%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 2.42%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
6.07%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.80%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 1.63%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
6.75%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 8.73%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
0.90%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 6.45%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.