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.
-22.43%
Negative net income growth while JMIA stands at 36.86%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-13.10%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with JMIA at -15.50%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
74.05%
Some yoy growth while JMIA is negative at -91.59%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
-4.51%
Negative yoy SBC while JMIA is 5.76%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-187.31%
Both reduce yoy usage, with JMIA at -48.06%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
132.31%
AR growth well above JMIA's 114.36%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
191.82%
Some inventory rise while JMIA is negative at -174.08%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
-175.30%
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.
-163.75%
Both reduce yoy usage, with JMIA at -1.11%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
242.34%
Well above JMIA's 83.60%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-84.41%
Negative yoy CFO while JMIA is 27.23%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-27.92%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 79.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
88.29%
Some acquisitions while JMIA is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pausing M&A or divesting while the firm invests in new deals.
-132.79%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
52.45%
Below 50% of JMIA's 128855.98%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
-0.29%
We reduce yoy other investing while JMIA is 511.06%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-151.53%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 3122.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
29.66%
Debt repayment above 1.5x JMIA's 1.10%, indicating stronger deleveraging. David Dodd would verify if expansions are not neglected.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.