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.
16.06%
Revenue growth similar to SNAP's 15.18%. Walter Schloss would see if both companies share industry tailwinds.
8.32%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 23.68%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
94.39%
EBIT growth above 1.5x SNAP's 19.11%. David Dodd would confirm if core operations or niche positioning yield superior profitability.
94.39%
Operating income growth above 1.5x SNAP's 33.92%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent cost or pricing advantages drive this outperformance.
5.87%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 19.76%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
7.32%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 18.18%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
7.32%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 18.18%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-1.64%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-1.75%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
49.74%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 123.95%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
1630.38%
FCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 332.75%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
1946.82%
Similar 10Y revenue/share CAGR to SNAP's 1810.37%. Walter Schloss might see both firms benefiting from the same long-term demand.
177.59%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 259.68%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
65.65%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 107.43%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
2049.19%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 158.81%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
111.80%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 156.26%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
73.46%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 267.79%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
10814.15%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
22.05%
5Y net income/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 34.84%. Martin Whitman might see a shortfall in operational efficiency or brand power.
-31.26%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
978.66%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 62.41%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
89.30%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
35.07%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 2.22%. 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.
19.94%
AR growth well above SNAP's 19.17%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.82%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.99%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.67%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
6.55%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 3.67%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
6.91%
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.