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.
28.09%
Net income growth above 1.5x JMIA's 1.31%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
-3.09%
Negative yoy D&A while JMIA is 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
19.38%
Deferred tax of 19.38% 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.
-19.38%
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.
142.35%
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.
78.34%
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.
27.51%
Inventory shrinking or stable vs. JMIA's 137.38%, indicating lean supply management. David Dodd would confirm no demand shortfall.
99.29%
AP growth of 99.29% 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.
-35.81%
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.
-161.26%
Both negative yoy, with JMIA at -616.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
100.61%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x JMIA's 40.10%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
46.37%
CapEx growth well above JMIA's 15.38%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
592.59%
Acquisition growth of 592.59% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
11.97%
Purchases growth of 11.97% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-29.03%
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.
-592.59%
We reduce yoy other investing while JMIA is 53.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-33.10%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 55.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
10.51%
We repay more while JMIA is negative at -54.62%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
31.05%
Issuance growth of 31.05% 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.