PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
238.00 - 242.07
140.53 - 242.25
26.77M / 38.44M (Avg.)
25.64 | 9.39
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.
8.94%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 48.63%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
8.13%
D&A growth of 8.13% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-64.57%
Negative yoy deferred tax while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
31.26%
SBC growth while BIDU is negative at -30.78%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
388.52%
Working capital change of 388.52% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-8.78%
AR is negative yoy while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-89.52%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-110.00%
Negative yoy AP while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
381.48%
Growth of 381.48% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a difference in minor WC usage that might affect short-term cash flow if large.
-900.00%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -318.75%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
12.25%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -354.71%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
25.85%
Some CapEx rise while BIDU is negative at -24.30%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
31.75%
Acquisition growth of 31.75% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-63.17%
Negative yoy purchasing while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
116.88%
Liquidation growth of 116.88% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
1863.16%
Growth well above BIDU's 151.30%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
47.88%
Investing outflow well above BIDU's 78.62%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
84.60%
Debt repayment growth of 84.60% while BIDU 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.