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.
1.22%
Some net income increase while BIDU is negative at -22.42%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
1.13%
D&A growth of 1.13% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-88.24%
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.
26.50%
SBC growth well above BIDU's 12.85%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-114.56%
Negative yoy working capital usage while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
65.19%
AR growth of 65.19% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-17.43%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
161.50%
AP growth of 161.50% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
-176.48%
Negative yoy usage while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-151.28%
Negative yoy while BIDU is 19.30%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-14.00%
Negative yoy CFO while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
5.65%
CapEx growth of 5.65% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
-30.77%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-11.79%
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.
12.08%
Liquidation growth of 12.08% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-44.79%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-13.99%
We reduce yoy invests while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-7.10%
We cut debt repayment yoy while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.