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.
-26.55%
Negative net income growth while JMIA stands at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
27.30%
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.
-156.72%
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.
0.63%
SBC growth while JMIA is negative at -11.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-176.62%
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.
169.27%
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.
159.29%
Inventory growth well above JMIA's 137.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-190.91%
Negative yoy AP while JMIA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-109.21%
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.
8.76%
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.
-157.11%
Negative yoy CFO while JMIA is 40.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
29.82%
CapEx growth well above JMIA's 15.38%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
-2.04%
Negative yoy acquisition while JMIA stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
52.19%
Purchases growth of 52.19% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
90.57%
Liquidation growth of 90.57% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-50.00%
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.
130.63%
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.
-47.12%
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.
-246.57%
We cut yoy buybacks while JMIA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.