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.
28.09%
Some net income increase while VIPS is negative at -20.59%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-3.09%
Negative yoy D&A while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
19.38%
Deferred tax of 19.38% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-19.38%
Both cut yoy SBC, with VIPS at -34.96%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
142.35%
Working capital change of 142.35% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
78.34%
AR growth of 78.34% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
27.51%
Inventory growth of 27.51% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
99.29%
AP growth of 99.29% 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.
-35.81%
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.
-161.26%
Negative yoy while VIPS is 23.19%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
100.61%
CFO growth of 100.61% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
46.37%
CapEx growth of 46.37% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
592.59%
Acquisition growth of 592.59% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
11.97%
Purchases growth of 11.97% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-29.03%
We reduce yoy sales while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-592.59%
We reduce yoy other investing while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-33.10%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
10.51%
Debt repayment growth of 10.51% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
31.05%
Issuance growth of 31.05% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.