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.
3.28%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 4.53%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
7.88%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SNAP's 3.54%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
-1.95%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-1.95%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-10.42%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-9.85%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-9.56%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.77%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.80%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.06%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 0.80%. 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.
-13.35%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-46.44%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1591.58%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 9118.15%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
237.11%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 358.37%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
81.46%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 139.01%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
3402.34%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
148.09%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 55.62%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
50.52%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
3059.73%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
87.41%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 28.60%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
171.76%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
556.66%
Equity/share CAGR of 556.66% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
106.25%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
50.64%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 35.82%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
1.19%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 7.85%, 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.
3.39%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.85%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
14.33%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
12.75%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 10.86%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
16.04%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 22.42%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.