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.
-21.87%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 62.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
23.58%
D&A growth well above META's 26.62%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-3.07%
Negative yoy deferred tax while META stands at 1895.65%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
15.81%
SBC growth while META is negative at -83.82%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-14.46%
Negative yoy working capital usage while META is 102.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-38.29%
AR is negative yoy while META is 52.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-91.09%
Negative yoy inventory while META is 100.88%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
22.09%
Lower AP growth vs. META's 660.00%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
18.22%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. META's 108.25%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
87.19%
Some yoy increase while META is negative at -44.75%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-5.83%
Negative yoy CFO while META is 3.31%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-12.66%
Negative yoy CapEx while META is 58.60%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
94.67%
Acquisition spending well above META's 38.91%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
-26.89%
Negative yoy purchasing while META stands at 73.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
29.14%
Below 50% of META's 192.64%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
31.55%
Less 'other investing' outflow yoy vs. META's 150.00%. David Dodd would see a stronger short-term cash position unless competitor invests more wisely.
73.30%
Investing outflow well above META's 93.97%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-13.55%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -22.22%. Martin Whitman suspects an environment prompting net new borrowings or weaker paydowns across the niche.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while META is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.