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.
80.89%
Net income growth above 1.5x META's 10.17%. David Dodd would see a clear bottom-line advantage if it is backed by stable operations.
7.12%
D&A growth well above META's 11.33%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-342.22%
Both reduce yoy usage, with META at -271.20%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-342.22%
Negative yoy usage while META is 93.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
8.38%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. META's 175.76%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
43.88%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x META's 6.39%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-141.01%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -27.80%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while META is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
7.36%
Some yoy expansion while META is negative at -95.19%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-21.41%
We reduce yoy sales while META is 198.35%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
86.45%
We have some outflow growth while META is negative at -645.56%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
-59.23%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -29.73%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
112.62%
Issuance growth of 112.62% while META is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild dilution that must be justified by expansions or acquisitions vs. competitor’s stable share base.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.