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.
-66.01%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 8.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
6.45%
D&A growth well above SNAP's 4.46%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
-672.22%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
-1.79%
Negative yoy SBC while SNAP is 17.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
226.76%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -986.23%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-118.35%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -128.60%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
412.16%
Inventory growth of 412.16% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-218.85%
Negative yoy AP while SNAP is 73.96%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-239.58%
Negative yoy usage while SNAP is 147.83%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
71.35%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -73.73%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
-12.97%
Negative yoy CFO while SNAP is 14.07%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
24.96%
CapEx growth well above SNAP's 3.89%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier cash outlays that risk short-term free cash flow vs. competitor.
85.28%
Acquisition growth of 85.28% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-59.08%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 12.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
71.24%
We have some liquidation growth while SNAP is negative at -30.54%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
-36.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -4075.00%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
57.00%
We have mild expansions while SNAP is negative at -61.41%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
14.48%
Debt repayment growth of 14.48% 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.
5.57%
Buyback growth below 50% of SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.