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.
-35.94%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with SNAP at -27.10%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
-8.94%
Negative yoy D&A while SNAP is 2.83%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
184.13%
Well above SNAP's 42.57% if it’s a large positive yoy. Michael Burry would see a bigger future tax burden vs. competitor’s approach.
20.64%
SBC growth well above SNAP's 3.24%. Michael Burry would flag major dilution risk vs. competitor’s approach.
-142.06%
Negative yoy working capital usage while SNAP is 99460.20%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
159.61%
AR growth well above SNAP's 179.31%. Michael Burry would fear inflated sales or less stringent credit controls vs. competitor.
-182.41%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-202.58%
Negative yoy AP while SNAP is 175.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
93.40%
Some yoy usage while SNAP is negative at -101.01%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
226.03%
Well above SNAP's 274.10%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-20.63%
Negative yoy CFO while SNAP is 109.40%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
0.78%
Some CapEx rise while SNAP is negative at -19.77%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
91.13%
Acquisition spending well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
-92.80%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -6.03%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
81.73%
At 75-90% of SNAP's 95.36%. Bill Ackman would push for additional sales if those assets are non-strategic or have peaked in value.
240.50%
Growth of 240.50% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
60.73%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 357.90%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-4042.55%
We cut debt repayment yoy while SNAP is 100.00%. 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.
-39.32%
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.