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.
29.28%
Net income growth at 50-75% of JMIA's 45.87%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
3.03%
Less D&A growth vs. JMIA's 18.98%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
16.31%
Deferred tax of 16.31% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
35.50%
SBC growth while JMIA is negative at -23.47%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
38.44%
Slight usage while JMIA is negative at -37.99%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-159.96%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with JMIA at -72.54%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-273.70%
Negative yoy inventory while JMIA is 217.74%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
153.23%
A yoy AP increase while JMIA is negative at -49.24%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-67.32%
Negative yoy usage while JMIA is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-18.69%
Both negative yoy, with JMIA at -89.92%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
33.13%
Some CFO growth while JMIA is negative at -329.10%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-18.06%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -135.64%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
127.75%
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.
-329.47%
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.
134.55%
Liquidation growth of 134.55% while JMIA is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-1046.52%
We reduce yoy other investing while JMIA is 853.82%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-23.94%
We reduce yoy invests while JMIA stands at 791.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-257.48%
Both yoy lines negative, with JMIA at -94.31%. 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.