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.
-0.23%
Negative revenue growth while SNAP stands at 8.69%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-1.85%
Negative gross profit growth while SNAP is at 16.18%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-15.72%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 55.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-15.72%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 6.07%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-11.55%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 52.55%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-10.90%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 53.57%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-10.80%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 53.57%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.75%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.70%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 2.18%. 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.
6.38%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 170.78%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
13.25%
FCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 144.69%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
2515.65%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 2872.47%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
323.62%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 435.46%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
115.61%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 197.10%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
2045.23%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 134.18%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
303.30%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 121.22%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
91.78%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 144.73%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
3383.84%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 65.33% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
259.26%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 62.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
82.59%
3Y net income/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 81.66%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to shared growth factors or demand patterns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
152.30%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 31.39%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
69.35%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 19.56%. 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.
3.33%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 14.60%, 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.
-0.60%
Negative asset growth while SNAP invests at 4.26%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
-2.79%
We have a declining book value while SNAP shows 15.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees a fundamental disadvantage in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
5.27%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
3.61%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 11.16%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
24.64%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 9.44%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.