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.
40.14%
Some net income increase while VIPS is negative at -20.59%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
14.29%
D&A growth of 14.29% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
1183.33%
Deferred tax of 1183.33% 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.
5.88%
SBC growth while VIPS is negative at -34.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
85.60%
Working capital change of 85.60% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-1068.75%
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.
-1100.00%
Negative yoy inventory while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
1151.79%
AP growth of 1151.79% 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.
-3.48%
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.
-28.28%
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.
70.73%
CFO growth of 70.73% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
-32.05%
Negative yoy CapEx while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
73.68%
Acquisition growth of 73.68% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-39.29%
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.
55.03%
Liquidation growth of 55.03% 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.
-8.24%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
20.00%
Debt repayment growth of 20.00% 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.