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.
14.07%
Net income growth under 50% of VIPS's 96.14%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
16.79%
D&A growth of 16.79% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-654.58%
Negative yoy deferred tax while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
11.98%
SBC growth of 11.98% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see some additional share issuance that must be justified by expansions or retention needs.
762.03%
Working capital change of 762.03% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-126.19%
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.
108.44%
Inventory growth of 108.44% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
262.19%
AP growth of 262.19% 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.
3315.52%
Growth of 3315.52% 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.
-84.35%
Both negative yoy, with VIPS at -96.14%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
154.35%
CFO growth of 154.35% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
-34.00%
Negative yoy CapEx while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
78.10%
Acquisition growth of 78.10% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-19.08%
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.
32.00%
Liquidation growth of 32.00% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
29.80%
Growth of 29.80% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-7.32%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
11.72%
Debt repayment growth of 11.72% 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.