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.
9.01%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 131.34%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
4.09%
D&A growth well above SNAP's 7.24%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
225.56%
Deferred tax of 225.56% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
2.07%
SBC growth while SNAP is negative at -1.11%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-179.29%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -48.45%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-141.55%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -16.56%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
226.80%
Inventory growth of 226.80% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
386.13%
AP growth well above SNAP's 226.14%. Michael Burry would be concerned about potential late payments or short-term liquidity strain relative to competitor.
-190.58%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -80.81%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-19.01%
Negative yoy while SNAP is 48.41%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
-2.37%
Negative yoy CFO while SNAP is 159.29%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
6.39%
Some CapEx rise while SNAP is negative at -23.84%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
-48.65%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -259.40%. Martin Whitman sees an overall caution or integration phase for both companies’ expansions.
-16.23%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 9.84%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
14.84%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x SNAP's 5.67%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
-74.23%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 78.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
-9.61%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -7.60%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
0.42%
Debt repayment growth of 0.42% 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.
-6.84%
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.