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.
-6.95%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-10.97%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-19.98%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-19.98%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
1.80%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
2.00%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
4.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.68%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.45%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.76%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.45%. 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.
22.20%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
57.95%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
424.42%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4150.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
116.48%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 4150.64%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
49.52%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 111.36%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
526.76%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 38.10%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
100.74%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 38.10%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
91.95%
3Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 73.15%. Bruce Berkowitz might see if strategic cost controls or product mix drove recent gains.
253.21%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
77.39%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
100.54%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 37.80%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
376.74%
Equity/share CAGR of 376.74% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
85.85%
Equity/share CAGR of 85.85% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a minor advantage that could compound if the firm maintains positive net worth growth.
41.98%
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.
-9.02%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
-8.32%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.86%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 20.66%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
2.50%
1.25-1.5x SNAP's 1.80%. Bruce Berkowitz sees if the firm's capital management strategies surpass the competitor's approach.
-4.94%
We’re deleveraging while SNAP stands at 57.84%. Joel Greenblatt considers if we gain a balance-sheet advantage for potential downturns.
0.81%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 9.32%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
-12.11%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.