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.
107.56%
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.
-4.32%
Negative yoy D&A while JMIA is 7.78%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-4388.46%
Negative yoy deferred tax while JMIA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
4388.46%
SBC growth while JMIA is negative at -11.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
298.12%
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.
-8.23%
AR is negative yoy while JMIA is 972.64%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-101.29%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 137.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
431.97%
AP growth of 431.97% 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.
13.91%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. JMIA's 91.73%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
284.29%
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.
877.69%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x JMIA's 40.10%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-36.67%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-201.77%
Negative yoy acquisition while JMIA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-515.62%
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.
201.77%
Liquidation growth of 201.77% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
201.77%
Growth well above JMIA's 53.85%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-427.37%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 55.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
35.19%
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.
982.74%
Issuance growth of 982.74% 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.