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.
-6.77%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-7.97%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-10.94%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-10.94%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-15.35%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-15.23%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-14.95%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.42%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 2.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.38%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.17%. 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.
-12.81%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 360.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.46%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 282.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
2955.33%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 7835.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
389.16%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1243.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
123.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 182.39%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
2928.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 221.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
312.83%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 200.15%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
59.35%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 149.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
3378.45%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
451.58%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
94.84%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 37.06%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
185.16%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 51.18%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
76.17%
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.
-9.34%
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.
2.64%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 0.69%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
4.62%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
9.01%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 28.37%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
-0.21%
Our R&D shrinks while SNAP invests at 9.46%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-8.49%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.