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.
-54.81%
Negative net income growth while JMIA stands at 1.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
4.88%
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.
-69.72%
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.
-1.53%
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.
-158.14%
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.
158.68%
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.
152.56%
Inventory growth well above JMIA's 137.38%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-191.17%
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.
-85.01%
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.
-7.43%
Both negative yoy, with JMIA at -616.74%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-144.85%
Negative yoy CFO while JMIA is 40.10%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-22.73%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 15.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-4.30%
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.
15.15%
Liquidation growth of 15.15% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
64.21%
Growth well above JMIA's 53.85%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-9.61%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 55.87%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-33.70%
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.