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.
-2.78%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
1.28%
Positive gross profit growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear operational edge over the competitor.
5.02%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
5.02%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
17.75%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
17.70%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
16.96%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.35%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 2.39%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.13%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.17%. 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.
-14.94%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 360.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-22.39%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 282.68%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
516.16%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 7835.23%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
178.82%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1243.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
83.30%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 182.39%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
480.85%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 221.99%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
157.19%
5Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 200.15%. Bill Ackman would push for operational improvements to match competitor’s mid-term gains.
71.00%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 149.94%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
852.54%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
335.18%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
96.85%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 37.06%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
349.75%
Equity/share CAGR of 349.75% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
90.07%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 51.18%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
47.61%
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.
-9.19%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
21.98%
Inventory growth of 21.98% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.34%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 0.69%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
3.72%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
0.76%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 28.37%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
6.59%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 9.46%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-10.51%
Both reduce SG&A yoy. Martin Whitman sees a cost war or cyclical slowdown forcing overhead cuts.