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.
13.67%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
6.37%
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.
-301.43%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
1.81%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 1.84%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
44.44%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-65.31%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -101.59%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-267.86%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-10.36%
Both negative yoy AP, with SNAP at -374.96%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
186.12%
Growth well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-433.33%
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.
3.05%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
1.49%
Some CapEx rise while SNAP is negative at -73.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-181.63%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-48.94%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -74.24%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
118.29%
At 50-75% of SNAP's 163.45%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
60.62%
Growth of 60.62% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
72.21%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 7722.77%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
10.37%
Debt repayment growth of 10.37% while SNAP 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.