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.
4.58%
Some net income increase while VIPS is negative at -20.59%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-52.29%
Negative yoy D&A while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-199.57%
Negative yoy working capital usage while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
158.46%
Inventory growth of 158.46% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
146.53%
Growth of 146.53% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a difference in minor WC usage that might affect short-term cash flow if large.
247.72%
Well above VIPS's 23.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-1117.31%
Negative yoy CFO while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
74.71%
CapEx growth of 74.71% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
67.64%
Acquisition growth of 67.64% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-349.33%
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.
79.65%
Liquidation growth of 79.65% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-2604.83%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-22.44%
Negative yoy issuance while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.