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.
1.22%
Some net income increase while SNAP is negative at -21.07%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
1.13%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 16.33%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-88.24%
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.
26.50%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 44.28%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-114.56%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -254.07%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
65.19%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -358.69%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-17.43%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
161.50%
AP growth of 161.50% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
-176.48%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -111.65%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-151.28%
Both negative yoy, with SNAP at -99.39%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-14.00%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with SNAP at -82.79%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
5.65%
Lower CapEx growth vs. SNAP's 13.32%, potentially boosting near-term free cash. David Dodd would confirm no missed expansions that competitor might exploit.
-30.77%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-11.79%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
12.08%
Liquidation growth of 12.08% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-44.79%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 45.33%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-13.99%
We reduce yoy invests while SNAP stands at 72.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
-7.10%
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.