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.
-2.65%
Negative net income growth while META stands at 33.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
9.55%
D&A growth well above META's 10.66%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-93.75%
Negative yoy deferred tax while META stands at 570.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
1.03%
SBC growth while META is negative at -6.63%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
475.00%
Slight usage while META is negative at -980.45%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-330.90%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with META at -219.84%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
93.85%
Some inventory rise while META is negative at -129.32%. John Neff would see competitor possibly benefiting from leaner stock if demand remains.
144.94%
AP growth well above META's 259.46%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
79.25%
Some yoy usage while META is negative at -122.98%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-2.21%
Both negative yoy, with META at -733.33%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-1.69%
Negative yoy CFO while META is 2.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-34.06%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -30.60%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-116.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with META at -90.28%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
6.21%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. META's 54.35%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
46.36%
We have some liquidation growth while META is negative at -25.67%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
45.00%
We have some outflow growth while META is negative at -600.00%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
33.94%
Investing outflow well above META's 11.75%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
99.10%
Debt repayment growth of 99.10% while META 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.
-20.45%
We cut yoy buybacks while META is 17.76%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.