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.
7.18%
Revenue growth above 1.5x SNAP's 3.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
6.53%
Gross profit growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 4.49%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic sourcing or brand premium explains outperformance.
7.45%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 18.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
7.45%
Operating income growth under 50% of SNAP's 23.78%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
8.86%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 18.51%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
9.26%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 21.05%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
9.55%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 21.05%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.43%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.57%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
-0.12%
Dividend reduction while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
0.64%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-12.84%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1280.31%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10083.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
162.49%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 164.05%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
52.56%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 18.46%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1384.97%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 82.51%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
155.07%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 81.51%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
66.03%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 80.11%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
1656.69%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
483.93%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 19.29%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
47.08%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
778.45%
Equity/share CAGR of 778.45% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
100.36%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
28.76%
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.
8.00%
AR growth well above SNAP's 3.02%. 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.
3.32%
Similar asset growth to SNAP's 3.52%. Walter Schloss finds parallel expansions or investment rates.
5.29%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.95%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 8.94%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
5.60%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
5.98%
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.