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.
50.98%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 199.56%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
16.88%
D&A growth of 16.88% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
12.97%
Deferred tax of 12.97% 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.
0.80%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 29.77%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-172.52%
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.
-436400.00%
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.
264.67%
Inventory growth of 264.67% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
1328.07%
AP growth of 1328.07% 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.
-2601.59%
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.
-161.93%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -69.12%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-6.72%
Negative yoy CFO while BIDU is 25.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
10.10%
CapEx growth of 10.10% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
-1600.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
46.03%
Purchases growth of 46.03% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-32.27%
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.
-68.07%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 162.92%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
47.42%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. BIDU's 162.92%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
67.59%
Debt repayment growth of 67.59% 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.
-7.06%
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.