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.
540.27%
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.
9.16%
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.
-111.66%
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.
111.66%
SBC growth while JMIA is negative at -11.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
760.38%
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.
161.65%
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.
-54.72%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 137.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
343.79%
AP growth of 343.79% 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.
110.78%
Growth well above JMIA's 91.73%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-3605.58%
Both negative yoy, with JMIA at -616.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
378.00%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x JMIA's 40.10%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-27.97%
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.
-17.71%
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.
6.15%
Liquidation growth of 6.15% 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.
23.45%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. JMIA's 55.87%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-1.64%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -54.62%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting net new borrowings or weaker paydowns across the niche.
118.64%
Issuance growth of 118.64% 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.