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.
-0.87%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
-0.64%
Negative yoy D&A while SNAP is 6.12%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
-295.83%
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.
3.16%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 1.84%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
184.92%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-370.04%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -101.59%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
-123.08%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-192.09%
Both negative yoy AP, with SNAP at -374.96%. Martin Whitman would find an overall trend toward paying down supplier credit in the niche.
223.91%
Growth well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
54.50%
Well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
28.15%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-12.84%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -73.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
81.57%
Acquisition growth of 81.57% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-7.13%
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.
50.16%
Below 50% of SNAP's 163.45%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
19.90%
Growth of 19.90% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
83.85%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 7722.77%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-60.17%
We cut debt repayment yoy while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.