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.
1.74%
Some net income increase while BIDU is negative at -56.97%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
-10.91%
Negative yoy D&A while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
490.45%
Deferred tax of 490.45% 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.
8.83%
SBC growth while BIDU is negative at -0.16%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-113.72%
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.
155.59%
AR growth of 155.59% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-213.11%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
180.47%
AP growth of 180.47% 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.
-46.14%
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.
-40.63%
Negative yoy while BIDU is 76.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
1.43%
CFO growth of 1.43% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
18.52%
CapEx growth of 18.52% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
84.74%
Acquisition growth of 84.74% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-48.39%
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.
51.63%
Liquidation growth of 51.63% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
5550.00%
Growth of 5550.00% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
39.37%
We expand invests by 39.37% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
-38.46%
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.
-130.52%
We cut yoy buybacks while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.