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.
6.14%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 85.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.04%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 37.91%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
11.72%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
11.72%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
15.93%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
16.13%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.67%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.22%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.35%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
19.09%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
33.79%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
670.09%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 856.39%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
123.80%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 856.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
47.77%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 856.39%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
854.43%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
143.49%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
87.91%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
494.98%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
82.92%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
46.46%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
742.21%
Equity/share CAGR of 742.21% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
131.09%
Equity/share CAGR of 131.09% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
57.22%
Equity/share CAGR of 57.22% 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.
17.97%
AR growth of 17.97% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if the firm’s additional AR is warranted by strong revenue or potential risk.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.04%
Asset growth of 3.04% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if modest expansions can create a longer-term lead.
3.71%
BV/share growth of 3.71% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees if small growth can compound into a strong advantage.
-19.30%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
-0.12%
Our R&D shrinks while SNAP invests at 28.31%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
3.56%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 46.71%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.