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.
14.21%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 95.62%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
12.91%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 18.87%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
14.27%
EBIT growth of 14.27% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can be scaled further.
14.27%
Operating income growth similar to SNAP's 15.63%. Walter Schloss would assume both share comparable operational structures.
23.72%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
24.14%
EPS growth of 24.14% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
20.69%
Diluted EPS growth of 20.69% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.22%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.79%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.39%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 2.80%. 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.
6.79%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
18.74%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
791.77%
10Y CAGR of 791.77% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if incremental growth can widen into a significant edge.
135.19%
5Y CAGR of 135.19% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small improvements can scale into a larger advantage.
54.63%
3Y CAGR of 54.63% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small gains can accelerate to a more decisive lead.
681.74%
OCF/share CAGR of 681.74% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that could compound over time.
69.32%
OCF/share CAGR of 69.32% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if modest momentum can translate into a bigger competitive lead.
31.63%
3Y OCF/share CAGR of 31.63% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see if small gains can expand into a broader advantage.
961.26%
10Y net income/share CAGR of 961.26% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minor gains can compound into a bigger lead over time.
80.17%
Net income/share CAGR of 80.17% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if small mid-term gains can develop into a bigger lead.
63.43%
3Y net income/share CAGR of 63.43% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if minor improvements can widen to a bigger advantage.
925.07%
Equity/share CAGR of 925.07% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
142.18%
Equity/share CAGR of 142.18% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
60.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 60.75% 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.
10.73%
AR growth of 10.73% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-77.80%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
2.20%
Asset growth of 2.20% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
3.29%
BV/share growth of 3.29% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-0.21%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
8.67%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 54.83%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
14.89%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.