PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
226.29 - 230.79
161.38 - 242.52
38.50M / 42.21M (Avg.)
34.73 | 6.57
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.
-126.65%
Negative net income growth while JMIA stands at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-0.10%
Negative yoy D&A while JMIA is 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
127.18%
Deferred tax of 127.18% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-127.18%
Both cut yoy SBC, with JMIA at -11.86%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
300.55%
Well above JMIA's 157.65% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
70.23%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. JMIA's 972.64%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-225.98%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 137.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
878.20%
AP growth of 878.20% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
-41.76%
Negative yoy usage while JMIA is 91.73%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
615.12%
Some yoy increase while JMIA is negative at -616.74%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
6815.10%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x JMIA's 40.10%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
11.01%
CapEx growth well above JMIA's 15.38%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
88.00%
Acquisition growth of 88.00% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-97.35%
Negative yoy purchasing while JMIA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-67.21%
We reduce yoy sales while JMIA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
88.00%
Growth well above JMIA's 53.85%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-413.53%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 55.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-4.05%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -54.62%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting net new borrowings or weaker paydowns across the niche.
9.11%
Issuance growth of 9.11% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.