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.
3.56%
Positive revenue growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a notable competitive edge here.
-0.13%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-12.54%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-12.54%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-18.26%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-16.00%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-20.00%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
0.29%
Slight or no buybacks while SNAP is reducing shares. John Neff might see a missed opportunity if the company’s stock is cheap.
0.27%
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.
6.52%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
19.99%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
1554.24%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10775.36%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
159.83%
5Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 155.85%. Walter Schloss might see both companies benefiting from the same mid-term trends.
62.26%
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.
1929.07%
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.
105.56%
Below 50% of SNAP's 214.88%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
44.85%
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.
4151.22%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
56.23%
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.
-4.20%
Negative 3Y CAGR while SNAP is 39.38%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.
2979.42%
Equity/share CAGR of 2979.42% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
173.94%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
72.03%
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.
20.41%
AR growth well above SNAP's 0.63%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-4.78%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.43%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.90%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.04%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
18.63%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.11%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 2.97%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.