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.
16.39%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 37.39%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
8.61%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 3505.95%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-1.52%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 22.49%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-1.52%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 21.84%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-144.86%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 21.03%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-144.90%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 22.22%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-145.83%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 22.22%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
0.14%
Share reduction more than 1.5x SNAP's 0.92%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-1.29%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.37%. 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.
4.01%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 9.24%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
-5.89%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 10.39%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
499.60%
10Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 431.13%. Bruce Berkowitz would investigate brand strength or geographical expansion fueling growth.
132.08%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 431.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
74.61%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 431.13%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
442.96%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
108.66%
Positive OCF/share growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
57.79%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
-324.13%
Both face negative decade-long net income/share CAGR. Martin Whitman would suspect a shrinking or highly disrupted sector.
-199.29%
Both exhibit negative net income/share growth over five years. Martin Whitman would suspect a challenging environment for the entire niche.
-162.09%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
501.80%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 138.19%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
101.77%
5Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 138.19%. Martin Whitman would question a shortfall in capital accumulation vs. the competitor.
42.72%
Below 50% of SNAP's 138.19%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
20.08%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 43.34%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-2.09%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
4.09%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
-3.06%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
0.13%
Debt growth of 0.13% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
2.40%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
31.25%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 0.89%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.