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.
14.38%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 109.62%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
118.36%
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.
125.09%
Deferred tax of 125.09% 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.
-6.98%
Both cut yoy SBC, with BIDU at -30.22%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
76.02%
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.
148.59%
AR growth while BIDU is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-100.00%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-597.42%
Negative yoy AP while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
65.06%
Growth well above BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
225.76%
Some yoy increase while BIDU is negative at -106.36%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
52.51%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -41.42%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-9.01%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 44.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-110.34%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
25.26%
Purchases growth of 25.26% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-26.10%
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.
253.03%
Growth well above BIDU's 88.61%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-38.87%
We reduce yoy invests while BIDU stands at 76.46%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
43.13%
Debt repayment growth of 43.13% 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.
3.06%
Buyback growth below 50% of BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.