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.
-8.53%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
0.41%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
4.92%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
4.92%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
2.25%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
4.00%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.44%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.47%
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.
-16.17%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-31.41%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
2318.93%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10775.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
162.39%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 155.85%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
71.93%
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.
2057.92%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 171.11%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
82.98%
Below 50% of SNAP's 214.88%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
32.35%
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.
5415.81%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
127.41%
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.
83.56%
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.
12534.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 12534.36% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
188.03%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
79.49%
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.
-11.88%
Firm’s AR is declining while SNAP shows 0.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
-20.89%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.05%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.59%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
19.03%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
0.71%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
-4.99%
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.