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.
16.41%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 30.95%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
9.76%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 76.62%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-4.89%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 41.07%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-4.89%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 39.79%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
-2.65%
Negative net income growth while SNAP stands at 41.05%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a reevaluation of cost or revenue strategies.
-3.03%
Negative EPS growth while SNAP is at 44.00%. Joel Greenblatt would expect urgent managerial action on costs or revenue drivers.
-1.54%
Negative diluted EPS growth while SNAP is at 44.00%. Joel Greenblatt would require immediate efforts to restrain share issuance or boost net income.
-0.08%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.14%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.14%. 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.
-1.69%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 4.90%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-25.50%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 6.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
522.21%
10Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 580.66%. Bill Ackman would press for new markets or product lines to narrow the gap.
124.41%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 580.66%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
82.11%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 580.66%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
452.66%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
138.81%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
100.21%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 29.71%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
2013.08%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
155.29%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
79.75%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
468.09%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 72.77%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
95.96%
5Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 72.77%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms if reinvested profits or buybacks explain the superior buildup.
45.98%
3Y equity/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 72.77%. Martin Whitman sees a short-term lag in net worth creation vs. the competitor.
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.
17.30%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 35.57%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
-8.66%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
5.08%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
4.67%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.65%
Debt growth of 0.65% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz sees additional leverage that must yield profitable expansions to be worthwhile.
15.33%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
20.35%
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.