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.
0.89%
Net income growth of 0.89% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest advantage that can compound if well-managed.
5.52%
D&A growth of 5.52% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-35.20%
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.
-0.62%
Negative yoy SBC while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
182.24%
Working capital change of 182.24% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-219.36%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-23.03%
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.
353.04%
Growth of 353.04% 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.
255.75%
Some yoy increase while BIDU is negative at -191.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
27.41%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -44.94%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-9.30%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -41.82%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
96.69%
Acquisition growth of 96.69% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-1.68%
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.
-6.56%
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.
93.23%
Growth well above BIDU's 73.18%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
10.17%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. BIDU's 59.63%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
209.46%
Debt repayment growth of 209.46% 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.
-1.70%
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.