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.
-481.78%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with VIPS at -20.59%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-0.55%
Negative yoy D&A while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
23.42%
Deferred tax of 23.42% 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.
-23.42%
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.
-194.85%
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.
104.59%
AR growth of 104.59% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
163.32%
Inventory growth of 163.32% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-186.21%
Negative yoy AP while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-117.46%
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.
-44.01%
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.
-167.58%
Negative yoy CFO while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
58.79%
CapEx growth of 58.79% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
97.39%
Acquisition growth of 97.39% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-34.31%
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.
36.79%
Liquidation growth of 36.79% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-97.39%
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.
15.95%
We expand invests by 15.95% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
-20.46%
We cut debt repayment yoy while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-41.03%
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.