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.
5.37%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 33.12%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
5.70%
D&A growth of 5.70% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
35.92%
Deferred tax of 35.92% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-0.75%
Negative yoy SBC while BIDU is 51.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-64.81%
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.
-708.16%
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.
93.04%
Inventory growth of 93.04% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-127.89%
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.
125.20%
Growth of 125.20% 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.
300.00%
Some yoy increase while BIDU is negative at -35.27%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-4.39%
Negative yoy CFO while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-20.52%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-162.70%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
45.81%
Purchases growth of 45.81% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-24.98%
We reduce yoy sales while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
100.75%
Growth of 100.75% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
63.96%
We expand invests by 63.96% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
95.26%
Debt repayment growth of 95.26% 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.