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.
-4.06%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with VIPS at -20.59%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
7.06%
D&A growth of 7.06% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-58.84%
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.
55.72%
SBC growth while VIPS is negative at -34.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
56.00%
Working capital change of 56.00% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-97.87%
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.
31.25%
Inventory growth of 31.25% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
100.57%
AP growth of 100.57% 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.
51.61%
Growth of 51.61% 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.
13.04%
Well above VIPS's 23.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
201.80%
CFO growth of 201.80% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
-18.26%
Negative yoy CapEx while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
49.21%
Acquisition growth of 49.21% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-49.81%
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.
-25.88%
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.
45.25%
Growth of 45.25% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-154.79%
We reduce yoy invests while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
26.56%
Debt repayment growth of 26.56% 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.