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.
3.32%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 47.13%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
6.97%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 20.31%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-65.55%
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.
1.55%
Less SBC growth vs. SNAP's 8.24%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
29.36%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -207.04%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
-231.03%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -234.90%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
200.96%
Inventory growth of 200.96% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
86.76%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -188.77%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-217.68%
Negative yoy usage while SNAP is 528.94%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
42.25%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -200.15%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
13.48%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -173.85%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
7.51%
Some CapEx rise while SNAP is negative at -34.76%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
81.51%
Acquisition spending well above SNAP's 72.18%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier integration risk or short-term free cash flow drain vs. competitor.
32.70%
Some yoy expansion while SNAP is negative at -51.70%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
-44.85%
We reduce yoy sales while SNAP is 5.15%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
-23.33%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 50.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-68.57%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -53.00%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
-726.15%
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.
-12.29%
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.