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.
11.87%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 27.62%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
14.23%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 50.45%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
17.79%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 46.87%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
17.79%
Operating income growth under 50% of SNAP's 36.59%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
3.32%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 47.13%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
3.76%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 48.42%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
3.82%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 48.42%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.63%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 3.04%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.36%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 3.04%. 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.
13.48%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
22.83%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
560.46%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 8496.59%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
195.12%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 798.85%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
96.74%
3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 213.39%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.
499.27%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 12.08%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
146.11%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 50.47%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
124.32%
3Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 57.56%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm is quickly gaining an operational edge over the competitor.
612.43%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 11.87% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
289.48%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 14.01%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
502.01%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 64.08%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
340.20%
Equity/share CAGR of 340.20% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
90.49%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 11.74%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
52.26%
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.
15.27%
AR growth well above SNAP's 30.09%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
2.14%
Inventory growth of 2.14% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
2.54%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 34.83%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
3.94%
Under 50% of SNAP's 65.42%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
2.68%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 13.01%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
2.54%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 6.34%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
18.22%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 15.04%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.