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.
6.77%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 14.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
6.31%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
88.33%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
88.33%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
91.03%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
96.00%
EPS growth of 96.00% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can accelerate over time.
92.00%
Diluted EPS growth of 92.00% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz would see if minimal gains can be scaled further for a bigger lead.
0.14%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 0.78%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
0.03%
Diluted share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 0.78%. 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.
33.35%
OCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 7.43%. David Dodd would confirm a clear edge in underlying cash generation.
38.54%
FCF growth above 1.5x SNAP's 6.93%. David Dodd would verify if the firm’s strategic investments yield superior returns.
489.25%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 642.43%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
86.23%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 642.43%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
64.15%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 642.43%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
442.86%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
133.13%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
60.85%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
464.86%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
192.54%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
140.04%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
570.46%
Equity/share CAGR of 570.46% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
118.36%
Equity/share CAGR of 118.36% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
55.27%
Equity/share CAGR of 55.27% 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.
4.71%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 13.67%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
92.21%
Inventory growth of 92.21% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
6.11%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.80%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.23%
Debt growth of 0.23% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
0.79%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
0.87%
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.