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.
5.07%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 32.59%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
-58.87%
Negative yoy D&A while SNAP is 26.97%. Joel Greenblatt would note a short-term EPS advantage unless competitor invests for future advantage.
8.44%
Deferred tax of 8.44% 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.
-1.46%
Both cut yoy SBC, with SNAP at -6.91%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-585.17%
Negative yoy working capital usage while SNAP is 84.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-131.05%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -19.33%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
174.06%
Inventory growth of 174.06% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
91.48%
Lower AP growth vs. SNAP's 928.77%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
-489.07%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -93.05%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
160.57%
Well above SNAP's 78.06%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-38.30%
Negative yoy CFO while SNAP is 1187.65%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-36.80%
Negative yoy CapEx while SNAP is 26.85%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
76.98%
Acquisition growth of 76.98% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-102.04%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 98.89%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
111.91%
Proceeds from sales/maturities above 1.5x SNAP's 18.30%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is capitalizing on strong valuations or freeing liquidity for expansions.
89.49%
We have some outflow growth while SNAP is negative at -662.01%. John Neff sees competitor possibly pulling back more aggressively from minor expansions or intangible invests.
13.75%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 2071.41%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-36.42%
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.
-2.56%
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.