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.
92.96%
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.
16.67%
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.
-101.30%
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.
11.11%
SBC growth while JMIA is negative at -11.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
385.99%
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.
-228.39%
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.
-23.19%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 137.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
218.26%
AP growth of 218.26% 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.
350.00%
Growth well above JMIA's 91.73%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-88.98%
Both negative yoy, with JMIA at -616.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
226.66%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x JMIA's 40.10%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-33.01%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
120.00%
Acquisition growth of 120.00% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-176.92%
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.
17.41%
Liquidation growth of 17.41% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
300.00%
Growth well above JMIA's 53.85%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-432.45%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 55.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-540.00%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -54.62%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting net new borrowings or weaker paydowns across the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.