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.
-12.55%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-12.15%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-21.77%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-24.86%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-20.13%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-19.83%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.32%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.28%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
-0.92%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
4.94%
Dividend growth of 4.94% while SNAP is flat. Bruce Berkowitz would see if this can become a bigger advantage long term.
-14.16%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-18.27%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
1232.49%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 12342.77%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
170.63%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 147.84%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
63.50%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 22.43%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
1476.83%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 219.60%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
147.75%
Below 50% of SNAP's 1928.88%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
84.06%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 13.53%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
3548.30%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 34.17% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
285.17%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 61.64%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
140.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 62.95%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
450.49%
Equity/share CAGR of 450.49% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
99.33%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
61.92%
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.
-14.59%
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.
1.51%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
1.59%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.94%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-0.25%
Our R&D shrinks while SNAP invests at 0.29%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
25.86%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 0.77%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.