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.
3.89%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 10.98%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.57%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 13.25%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
16.86%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 41.66%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
16.86%
Operating income growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 31.80%. Martin Whitman would doubt the firm’s ability to compete efficiently.
16.51%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 38.36%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
16.76%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 38.53%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
16.86%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 38.53%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.20%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.38%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.11%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.04%
Dividend reduction while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.
27.64%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 642.04%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
47.06%
FCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 197.81%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
1218.27%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3533.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
161.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 157.74%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
57.96%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 22.24%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1960.90%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 152.62%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
201.80%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 227.49%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
98.10%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 53.95%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
1934.91%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.80% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
192.61%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 43.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
92.65%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
705.90%
Equity/share CAGR of 705.90% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
98.85%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
39.29%
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.
1.34%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 4.72%, 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.
11.37%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 2.31%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
5.16%
75-90% of SNAP's 5.76%. Bill Ackman advocates improvements in profitability or buybacks to keep pace in net worth growth.
29.10%
Debt growth far above SNAP's 0.02%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
6.07%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 1.62%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-26.52%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.