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.
4.42%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 78.56%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
2.86%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 101.85%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-3.37%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-3.37%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
3.77%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2.78%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
2.86%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.25%
Share change of 0.25% while SNAP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.23%
Diluted share change of 0.23% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor difference that could widen over time.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
7.95%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
4.20%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
636.59%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 455.12%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
117.10%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 455.12%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
46.28%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 455.12%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
765.03%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
134.26%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
87.94%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
508.98%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 6.92% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
74.31%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 6.92%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
65.35%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 6.92%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
721.96%
Equity/share CAGR of 721.96% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
129.88%
Equity/share CAGR of 129.88% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
56.80%
Equity/share CAGR of 56.80% 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.
-2.88%
Firm’s AR is declining while SNAP shows 79.60%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
3.67%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.61%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-6.31%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 2.73%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
6.93%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 51.34%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.67%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 35.15%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.