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.
-10.67%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-11.49%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-13.91%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-13.91%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-35.94%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-35.06%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-36.36%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.34%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.24%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.42%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.19%. 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.
-20.63%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 109.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-34.97%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 93.93%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
462.67%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4920.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
136.56%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4920.50%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
67.45%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 106.92%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
310.44%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 105.90%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
71.66%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 105.90%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags in monetizing revenue effectively.
20.76%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 102.71%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
223.85%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
92.91%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
26.86%
Below 50% of SNAP's 90.73%. Michael Burry suspects a steep short-term disadvantage in bottom-line expansion.
392.71%
Equity/share CAGR of 392.71% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
86.28%
Equity/share CAGR of 86.28% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
41.48%
Positive short-term equity growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a strong advantage in near-term net worth buildup.
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.
-13.67%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-11.01%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
-0.91%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
1.45%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
4.90%
We have some new debt while SNAP reduces theirs. John Neff sees the competitor as more cautious unless our expansions pay off strongly.
-5.57%
Our R&D shrinks while SNAP invests at 8.69%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-13.86%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.