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.
-126.84%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with VIPS at -20.59%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-8.41%
Negative yoy D&A while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
44.77%
Deferred tax of 44.77% 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.
-11.68%
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.
-285.01%
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.
76.88%
AR growth of 76.88% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-36.50%
Negative yoy inventory while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-217.41%
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.
-144.54%
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.
175.03%
Well above VIPS's 23.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-112.63%
Negative yoy CFO while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
21.04%
CapEx growth of 21.04% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
-1564.30%
Negative yoy acquisition while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
78.66%
Purchases growth of 78.66% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
81.49%
Liquidation growth of 81.49% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-50.95%
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.
107.20%
We expand invests by 107.20% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
52.14%
Debt repayment growth of 52.14% 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.