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.
16.09%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 29.23%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
12.01%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 2808.49%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
15.12%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
15.12%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
5.37%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
5.41%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
5.56%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.33%
Share change of 0.33% while SNAP is at zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if slight buybacks (or dilution) matter in the bigger picture.
0.25%
Diluted share change of 0.25% 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.
-4.39%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 22.66%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-13.11%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 19.64%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
610.45%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 276.97%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
131.47%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 276.97%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
50.07%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 276.97%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
803.01%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
125.45%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
74.43%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
352.08%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
85.36%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
53.33%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
612.93%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 47.97%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
124.74%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 47.97%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
54.57%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 47.97%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
14.82%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 32.41%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-52.06%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.72%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.34%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.08%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 3.34%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.72%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 19.06%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
17.16%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 52.42%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.