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.
17.47%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 14.53%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
16.04%
Gross profit growth similar to SNAP's 16.91%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
24.10%
EBIT growth 50-75% of SNAP's 32.84%. Martin Whitman would suspect suboptimal resource allocation.
24.10%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 34.56%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
21.01%
Net income growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 32.59%. Martin Whitman would question fundamental disadvantages in expenses or demand.
21.33%
EPS growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 34.78%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lag in operational efficiency or a higher share count.
21.41%
Diluted EPS growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 34.78%. Martin Whitman would question if share issuance or modest net income gains hamper progress.
-0.39%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 0.79%. 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.
-4.89%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 1187.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.30%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 282.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1437.98%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 1821.68%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
166.72%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 182.33%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
60.93%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 33.69%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1462.36%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 174.19%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
184.02%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 205.55%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
55.66%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 380.32%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
2571.77%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
129.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
40.72%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
881.35%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 45.92%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
104.77%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
34.47%
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.
24.92%
AR growth well above SNAP's 14.48%. 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.
6.17%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 3.17%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
7.62%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
2.81%
Debt growth far above SNAP's 4.54%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
13.81%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
11.48%
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.