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.
19.21%
Revenue growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 13.46%. Bruce Berkowitz would check if differentiation or pricing power justifies outperformance.
19.06%
Gross profit growth similar to SNAP's 20.71%. Walter Schloss would assume both firms track common industry trends.
32.02%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 114.44%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
34.66%
Operating income growth under 50% of SNAP's 84.48%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
32.83%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 105.94%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
32.58%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 105.86%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
32.17%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 105.75%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
0.20%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 3.26%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.54%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 3.25%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
0.36%
Dividend growth of 0.36% while SNAP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
13.20%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 99.04%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-17.63%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 153.87%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
1286.29%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 1997.92%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm’s offerings lag behind the competitor.
159.42%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 127.80%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
58.62%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 12.13%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1850.78%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 199.22%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
248.29%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 383.09%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
70.65%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 16.18%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
3203.43%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 104.10% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
220.50%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 103.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
123.64%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
458.27%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 41.36%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
104.28%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
61.43%
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.
15.61%
AR growth well above SNAP's 12.78%. 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.
7.66%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 4.54%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
10.79%
1.25-1.5x SNAP's 7.39%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
0.03%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 0.08%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
8.97%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 2.46%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-14.61%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.