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.
14.07%
Some net income increase while JMIA is negative at -58.30%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
16.79%
D&A growth well above JMIA's 16.94%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-654.58%
Negative yoy deferred tax while JMIA stands at 588.28%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
11.98%
Less SBC growth vs. JMIA's 208.91%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
762.03%
Slight usage while JMIA is negative at -139.37%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-126.19%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with JMIA at -265.99%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
108.44%
Inventory growth well above JMIA's 39.81%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
262.19%
AP growth of 262.19% 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.
3315.52%
Some yoy usage while JMIA is negative at -206.71%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-84.35%
Negative yoy while JMIA is 58.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
154.35%
Some CFO growth while JMIA is negative at -40.90%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-34.00%
Negative yoy CapEx while JMIA is 20.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
78.10%
Acquisition growth of 78.10% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-19.08%
Negative yoy purchasing while JMIA stands at 258.31%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
32.00%
Liquidation growth of 32.00% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
29.80%
We have some outflow growth while JMIA is negative at -100.63%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-7.32%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 28.48%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
11.72%
We repay more while JMIA is negative at -101.32%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.