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.
-35.05%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 27.09%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
8.12%
D&A growth well above META's 8.49%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-112.23%
Negative yoy deferred tax while META stands at 130.95%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-0.30%
Negative yoy SBC while META is 19.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
459.49%
Slight usage while META is negative at -161.31%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-165.98%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with META at -163.38%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
259.86%
Inventory growth well above META's 248.15%. Michael Burry would suspect potential future write-down risk if demand does not materialize.
-84.47%
Both negative yoy AP, with META at -180.00%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
-455.07%
Negative yoy usage while META is 234.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-44.74%
Negative yoy while META is 60.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-22.47%
Negative yoy CFO while META is 5.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-12.88%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -13.61%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
58.42%
Acquisition growth of 58.42% while META is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
2.81%
Some yoy expansion while META is negative at -2.19%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-23.27%
We reduce yoy sales while META is 32.78%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-13.78%
We reduce yoy other investing while META is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-151.56%
We reduce yoy invests while META stands at 7.66%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-111.11%
We cut debt repayment yoy while META is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-100.00%
Negative yoy issuance while META is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
-43.57%
We cut yoy buybacks while META is 34.21%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.