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.
0.59%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.35%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-3.36%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.36%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
6.88%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
4.76%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
4.76%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.34%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.34%
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.
-5.86%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
3.83%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
17079.97%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 10775.36%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
176.26%
5Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 155.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would verify if cost efficiency or pricing power supports this advantage.
87.26%
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.
188.01%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 214.88%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
59.14%
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.
24386.90%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
174.21%
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.
96.82%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 39.38%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
219.31%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
100.37%
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.
-7.44%
Firm’s AR is declining while SNAP shows 0.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-76.28%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
6.30%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.78%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
29.76%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
10.76%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-21.23%
We cut SG&A while SNAP invests at 2.97%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.