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.
-0.18%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 18.51%. Joel Greenblatt would see a comparative disadvantage in bottom-line performance.
8.64%
Some D&A expansion while SNAP is negative at -9.07%. John Neff would see competitor’s short-term profit advantage unless expansions here deliver big returns.
-853.46%
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.
11.42%
SBC growth while SNAP is negative at -1.68%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
-113.97%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -191.02%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-196.53%
Both yoy AR lines negative, with SNAP at -122.76%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall sector lean approach or softer demand.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
173.49%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -80.57%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
-7.64%
Negative yoy usage while SNAP is 138.03%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
73.46%
Lower 'other non-cash' growth vs. SNAP's 361.83%, indicating steadier reported figures. David Dodd would confirm no missed necessary write-downs or gains.
-7.65%
Both yoy CFO lines are negative, with SNAP at -124.20%. Martin Whitman would suspect cyclical or cost factors harming the entire niche’s cash generation.
-9.77%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -3.20%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
57.38%
Acquisition growth of 57.38% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-6.53%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -66.82%. Martin Whitman would suspect an environment with fewer attractive securities or a strategic pivot to internal growth.
33.94%
At 50-75% of SNAP's 59.70%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
-231.68%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -1211.11%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
67.53%
We have mild expansions while SNAP is negative at -63.36%. John Neff sees competitor possibly divesting or pausing expansions more aggressively.
57.16%
We repay more while SNAP is negative at -67.99%. John Neff notes advantage in lowering leverage if competitor is ramping up debt or repaying less.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.08%
Buyback growth below 50% of SNAP's 67.69%. Michael Burry suspects fewer capital returns to shareholders vs. competitor, unless expansions hold higher ROI.