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.
5.09%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 21.40%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
4.56%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 315.34%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-37.09%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 80.02%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-37.09%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 79.72%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-35.05%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 79.94%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-35.90%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 84.42%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-35.90%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 84.42%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.16%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 28.11%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.21%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 28.11%. 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.
-22.47%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-35.06%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
502.41%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1911.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
100.71%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1911.06%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
58.97%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1911.06%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
439.77%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
64.10%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
28.29%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
241.60%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
19.26%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
2.55%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
576.41%
Equity/share CAGR of 576.41% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
115.95%
Equity/share CAGR of 115.95% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
51.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 51.02% 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.
14.71%
AR growth well above SNAP's 16.15%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
42.14%
Inventory growth of 42.14% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.39%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
2.14%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.46%
Debt growth of 0.46% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
5.83%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
3.42%
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.