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.
-10.94%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-5.42%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-28.72%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-28.72%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
22.70%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
25.57%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
25.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-1.93%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-1.67%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 0.48%. 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.
-3.54%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 20.60%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
30.87%
FCF growth similar to SNAP's 32.04%. Walter Schloss would attribute it to parallel capital spending and operational models.
1780.52%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 9579.63%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
172.46%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 244.47%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
78.96%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 92.80%. Bill Ackman would expect new product strategies to close the gap.
1763.47%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 227.87%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
102.70%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 152.35%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
41.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2069.11%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2418.18%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
30.29%
5Y net income/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 31.53%. Walter Schloss might see both on parallel mid-term trajectories.
29.05%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 3.10%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
910.23%
Equity/share CAGR of 910.23% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
82.99%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
31.32%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 9.45%. 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.
-17.99%
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.
-0.67%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.23%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
3.70%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-3.99%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-22.59%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.