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.
8.34%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
16.07%
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.
87.46%
Deferred tax of 87.46% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
14.46%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 1.84%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-103.71%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
19.56%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -101.59%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-273.51%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
7.61%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -374.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
26.43%
Lower 'other working capital' growth vs. SNAP's 100.00%. David Dodd would see fewer unexpected short-term demands on cash.
-195.16%
Negative yoy while SNAP is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
5.09%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-24.09%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -73.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-3640.01%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
33.72%
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.
29.92%
Below 50% of SNAP's 163.45%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-60.72%
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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.