PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
95.23 - 97.14
55.47 - 103.81
1.63M / 1.80M (Avg.)
55.57 | 1.74
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-17.73%
Negative net income growth while FSM stands at 789.49%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-5.58%
Negative yoy D&A while FSM is 54.17%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-16.14%
Negative yoy deferred tax while FSM stands at 534.65%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-3.30%
Both cut yoy SBC, with FSM at -52.49%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-129.02%
Both reduce yoy usage, with FSM at -90.64%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-266.58%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with FSM at -72.73%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
172.76%
Inventory growth well above FSM's 43.54%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
440.48%
AP growth well above FSM's 64.35%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
110.07%
Some yoy usage while FSM is negative at -126.97%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-44.47%
Negative yoy while FSM is 148.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-15.45%
Negative yoy CFO while FSM is 140.71%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-6.60%
Negative yoy CapEx while FSM is 45.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-100.07%
Negative yoy acquisition while FSM stands at 133.25%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-16048.39%
Negative yoy purchasing while FSM stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-100.07%
We reduce yoy sales while FSM is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
157.57%
Growth well above FSM's 258.13%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-133.09%
We reduce yoy invests while FSM stands at 54.02%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
4.52%
Debt repayment above 1.5x FSM's 2.65%, indicating stronger deleveraging. David Dodd would verify if expansions are not neglected.
-92.39%
Negative yoy issuance while FSM is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
92.39%
Buyback growth of 92.39% while FSM is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.