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.
2.22%
Some net income increase while BIDU is negative at -2740.31%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
12.19%
Some D&A expansion while BIDU is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-439.58%
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.
1.87%
SBC growth while BIDU is negative at -36.29%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
422.16%
Well above BIDU's 100.00% if positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a risk of bigger working capital demands vs. competitor, harming free cash flow.
34.20%
AR growth is negative or stable vs. BIDU's 100.00%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd would confirm it doesn't hamper sales volume.
-58.45%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
283.08%
AP growth of 283.08% 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.
405.35%
Growth well above BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
27.57%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. BIDU's 133.76%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
16.67%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -57.72%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-24.07%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -2283.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
15.91%
Less M&A spending yoy vs. BIDU's 100.00%, reducing near-term risk. David Dodd would confirm the firm is not missing out on a strategic deal that competitor might exploit.
-40.90%
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.
46.81%
Liquidation growth of 46.81% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
1586.96%
We have some outflow growth while BIDU is negative at -14.88%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-10.76%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -14.88%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
17.43%
Debt repayment growth of 17.43% 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.
1.45%
Buyback growth below 50% of BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.