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.
-0.87%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 23.21%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-0.64%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with META at -2.65%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-295.83%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
3.16%
Less SBC growth vs. META's 14.60%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
184.92%
Slight usage while META is negative at -68.14%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-370.04%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with META at -278.10%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-123.08%
Negative yoy inventory while META is 637.50%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-192.09%
Negative yoy AP while META is 890.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
223.91%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. META's 700.00%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
54.50%
Some yoy increase while META is negative at -242.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
28.15%
Operating cash flow growth above 1.5x META's 4.36%. David Dodd would confirm superior cost control or stronger revenue-to-cash conversion.
-12.84%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -29.20%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
81.57%
Acquisition growth of 81.57% while META is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-7.13%
Negative yoy purchasing while META stands at 49.29%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
50.16%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x META's 7.50%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
19.90%
We have some outflow growth while META is negative at -100.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
83.85%
Investing outflow well above META's 77.46%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
-60.17%
We cut debt repayment yoy while META is 21.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.