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.
9.01%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 110.36%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
4.09%
D&A growth of 4.09% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
225.56%
Deferred tax of 225.56% 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.
2.07%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 55.27%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-179.29%
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.
-141.55%
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.
226.80%
Inventory growth of 226.80% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
386.13%
AP growth of 386.13% 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.
-190.58%
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.
-19.01%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -84.94%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-2.37%
Negative yoy CFO while BIDU is 40.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
6.39%
Some CapEx rise while BIDU is negative at -59.05%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-48.65%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-16.23%
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.
14.84%
Liquidation growth of 14.84% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-74.23%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 114.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-9.61%
We reduce yoy invests while BIDU stands at 114.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
0.42%
Debt repayment growth of 0.42% 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.
-6.84%
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.