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 at 75-90% of SNAP's 100.00%. Bill Ackman would call for strategic or operational tweaks to match competitor’s earnings growth.
7.12%
D&A growth well above SNAP's 6.12%. 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 SNAP at -100.00%. 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 SNAP is 100.00%. 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. SNAP's 100.00%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
43.88%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-141.01%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -73.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
100.00%
Acquisition growth of 100.00% while SNAP 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 SNAP is negative at -74.24%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-21.41%
We reduce yoy sales while SNAP is 163.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
86.45%
Growth of 86.45% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
-59.23%
We reduce yoy invests while SNAP stands at 7722.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
112.62%
Issuance growth of 112.62% while SNAP 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.