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.
112.80%
Net income growth under 50% of SE's 263.12%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
4.19%
Some D&A expansion while SE is negative at -7.54%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-481.36%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
50.11%
SBC growth while SE is negative at -9.71%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
56.05%
Working capital change of 56.05% while SE is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-439.71%
AR is negative yoy while SE is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-739.62%
Negative yoy inventory while SE is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
126.89%
AP growth of 126.89% while SE is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
63.96%
Growth of 63.96% while SE is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a difference in minor WC usage that might affect short-term cash flow if large.
-91.20%
Both negative yoy, with SE at -107.71%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
244.11%
Some CFO growth while SE is negative at -1.66%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
19.37%
Lower CapEx growth vs. SE's 68.32%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
91.00%
Acquisition growth of 91.00% while SE is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-46.75%
Negative yoy purchasing while SE stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
39.10%
Liquidation growth of 39.10% while SE is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-8.27%
Both yoy lines negative, with SE at -452.03%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
38.80%
We have mild expansions while SE is negative at -374.03%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
-70.53%
We cut debt repayment yoy while SE is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.