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.
410.53%
Some net income increase while VIPS is negative at -20.59%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-6.35%
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.
1402.13%
Working capital change of 1402.13% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-118.87%
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.
41.74%
Inventory growth of 41.74% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
133.73%
AP growth of 133.73% 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.
445.45%
Growth of 445.45% 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.
-330.56%
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.
472.31%
CFO growth of 472.31% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
19.35%
CapEx growth of 19.35% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-490.75%
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.
98.63%
Liquidation growth of 98.63% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-66.67%
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.
-455.78%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
83.33%
Debt repayment growth of 83.33% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.