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.
5.35%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 215.57%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.43%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
-2.42%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.42%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.22%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.00%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.00%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.42%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.58%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.41%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.58%. David Dodd would validate if the company is aggressively retiring shares or limiting option exercises.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-14.00%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-18.70%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
848.96%
10Y CAGR of 848.96% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
138.08%
5Y CAGR of 138.08% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
26.56%
3Y CAGR of 26.56% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
644.98%
OCF/share CAGR of 644.98% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
93.34%
OCF/share CAGR of 93.34% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
43.36%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 43.36% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
737.27%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 737.27% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
70.56%
Net income/share CAGR of 70.56% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
74.74%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 74.74% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
960.33%
Equity/share CAGR of 960.33% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
149.42%
Equity/share CAGR of 149.42% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
63.28%
Equity/share CAGR of 63.28% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor gains can snowball into a bigger lead soon.
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.
4.16%
AR growth of 4.16% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
68.09%
Inventory growth of 68.09% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.94%
Asset growth of 3.94% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
3.55%
BV/share growth of 3.55% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.04%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
15.81%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 10.02%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
4.82%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 8.92%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.