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.
3.77%
Some net income increase while SNAP is negative at -7.19%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
7.11%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 24.03%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-390.00%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
23.75%
Less SBC growth vs. SNAP's 212.00%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
30.02%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -253.83%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
66.23%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -222.53%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
45.40%
Inventory growth of 45.40% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
856.25%
AP growth well above SNAP's 760.63%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-63.27%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -318.66%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-256.10%
Both negative yoy, with SNAP at -324.98%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
7.95%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -61.71%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-20.30%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -4.70%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-563.16%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-0.83%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 52.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-16.00%
We reduce yoy sales while SNAP is 189.28%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-1662.26%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 1794.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-81.86%
We reduce yoy invests while SNAP stands at 79.20%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
73.70%
Debt repayment growth of 73.70% 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.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.