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.
6.05%
Some net income increase while VIPS is negative at -20.59%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
6.77%
D&A growth of 6.77% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-97.83%
Negative yoy deferred tax while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
77.12%
SBC growth while VIPS is negative at -34.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
60.88%
Working capital change of 60.88% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-190.22%
AR is negative yoy while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-231.75%
Negative yoy inventory while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
178.05%
AP growth of 178.05% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
-19.41%
Negative yoy usage while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
55.34%
Well above VIPS's 23.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
91.10%
CFO growth of 91.10% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
-28.63%
Negative yoy CapEx while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-3641.67%
Negative yoy acquisition while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-33.48%
Negative yoy purchasing while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
47.87%
Liquidation growth of 47.87% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
6.68%
Growth of 6.68% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-32.28%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-940.43%
We cut debt repayment yoy while VIPS is 0.00%. 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.