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
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
15.09%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
18.71%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-97.90%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-97.90%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-34.25%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-34.62%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-34.62%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
46.22%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
139.87%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
424.75%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10775.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
424.75%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 155.85%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
424.75%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.98%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
47.81%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
47.81%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 30.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
47.81%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 39.38%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
47.37%
AR growth well above SNAP's 0.63%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
117.51%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
154.57%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-26.57%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
25.45%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
10.92%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.