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.
-29.20%
Negative net income growth while JMIA stands at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
5.26%
D&A growth well above JMIA's 7.78%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
57.25%
Deferred tax of 57.25% 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.
-57.25%
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.
-32.67%
Negative yoy working capital usage while JMIA is 157.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-598.90%
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.
-1376.38%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 137.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
322.47%
AP growth of 322.47% 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.
-21.20%
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.
74.84%
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.
-18.45%
Negative yoy CFO while JMIA is 40.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-103.08%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-51.83%
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.
828.39%
Liquidation growth of 828.39% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
61.55%
Investing outflow well above JMIA's 55.87%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
14.73%
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.
-60.37%
Negative yoy issuance while JMIA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.