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.
-2.65%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 41.05%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
9.55%
Some D&A expansion while SNAP is negative at -8.90%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-93.75%
Both lines show negative yoy. Martin Whitman would see an industry or cyclical factor reducing tax deferrals for both players.
1.03%
SBC growth while SNAP is negative at -3.97%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
475.00%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -2633.15%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-330.90%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -396.14%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
93.85%
Inventory growth of 93.85% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
144.94%
Lower AP growth vs. SNAP's 432.92%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
79.25%
Some yoy usage while SNAP is negative at -77.46%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-2.21%
Both negative yoy, with SNAP at -101.21%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-1.69%
Negative yoy CFO while SNAP is 4.90%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-34.06%
Negative yoy CapEx while SNAP is 13.48%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-116.67%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
6.21%
Less growth in investment purchases vs. SNAP's 24.28%, preserving near-term liquidity. David Dodd would confirm no strategic investment opportunities are lost.
46.36%
We have some liquidation growth while SNAP is negative at -8.75%. John Neff notes a short-term liquidity advantage if competitor is holding or restricted.
45.00%
Growth of 45.00% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
33.94%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 81.37%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
99.10%
Debt repayment growth of 99.10% 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.
-20.45%
We cut yoy buybacks while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.