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.
-5.03%
Negative revenue growth while SNAP stands at 18.58%. Joel Greenblatt would look for strategic missteps or cyclical reasons.
-4.05%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-0.71%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-0.71%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-14.54%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-13.89%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 23.08%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-14.29%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 23.08%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.02%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 34.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
0.33%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 34.33%. 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.
19.38%
OCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 9.67%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
21.21%
FCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 1.59%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
666.76%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 490.85%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
120.99%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 490.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
39.42%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 490.85%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
692.06%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
125.84%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
102.66%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
505.94%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.71% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
118.88%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 17.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
20.88%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 17.71%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
929.11%
Equity/share CAGR of 929.11% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
136.63%
Equity/share CAGR of 136.63% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
57.41%
Equity/share CAGR of 57.41% 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.
-6.39%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.55%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.71%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.23%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-4.07%
Both reduce R&D yoy. Martin Whitman sees an industry shifting to cost reduction or limited breakthroughs in the near term.
-8.26%
We cut SG&A while SNAP invests at 90.77%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.