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.
35.39%
Some net income increase while BIDU is negative at -62.17%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
7.10%
D&A growth of 7.10% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
1127.94%
Deferred tax of 1127.94% 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.
0.88%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 39.89%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
125.13%
Working capital change of 125.13% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-51.21%
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.
40.55%
Inventory growth of 40.55% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
129.29%
AP growth of 129.29% 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.
348.82%
Growth of 348.82% 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.
-58.65%
Negative yoy while BIDU is 114.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
33.37%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -22.60%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-1.35%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-2746.15%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
10.68%
Purchases growth of 10.68% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
11.18%
Liquidation growth of 11.18% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
85.96%
Growth well above BIDU's 85.32%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
52.09%
Investing outflow well above BIDU's 85.32%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
6.56%
Debt repayment growth of 6.56% 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.
-0.09%
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.