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.
1.60%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
2.64%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-23.00%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-23.00%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-29.30%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-30.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-30.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.49%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.26%
Slight or no buyback while SNAP is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-10.04%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
132.62%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
13901.55%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 10775.36%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
246.97%
5Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 155.85%. David Dodd would look for consistent product or market expansions fueling outperformance.
61.03%
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.
250.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 214.88%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
73.60%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 169.50%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
15313.14%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
176.83%
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.
33.97%
3Y net income/share CAGR 75-90% of SNAP's 39.38%. Bill Ackman might push for an operational plan to match or beat the competitor’s short-term growth.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
334.91%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
95.48%
Positive short-term equity growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-3.68%
Firm’s AR is declining while SNAP shows 0.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
23.55%
Inventory growth of 23.55% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.65%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.12%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-7.19%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
16.65%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
10.68%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.