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.
69.11%
Net income growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 100.00%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
-18.10%
Negative yoy D&A while SNAP is 6.12%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
209.44%
Deferred tax of 209.44% 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.
-7.98%
Negative yoy SBC while SNAP is 1.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
-141.45%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-3097.22%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -101.59%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
1834.62%
Inventory growth of 1834.62% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
532.28%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -374.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-125.26%
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.
-642.98%
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.
6.17%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-46.92%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -73.86%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
111.38%
Acquisition growth of 111.38% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
27.55%
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.
12.42%
Below 50% of SNAP's 163.45%. Michael Burry would see minimal near-term inflows vs. competitor’s liquidation approach.
-298.10%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
65.25%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 7722.77%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
14.42%
Debt repayment growth of 14.42% 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.