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.
5.23%
Revenue growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 8.69%. Martin Whitman would worry about competitiveness or product relevance.
5.17%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 16.18%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
8.63%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 55.07%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.63%
Operating income growth 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 6.07%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if strategic measures (e.g., cost cutting, product mix) are succeeding.
2.22%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 52.55%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
2.90%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 53.57%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
2.94%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 53.57%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.48%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 2.18%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.46%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 2.18%. 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.
16.67%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 170.78%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
14.19%
FCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 144.69%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
550.37%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 2872.47%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
199.58%
5Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 435.46%. Michael Burry would suspect a significant competitive gap or product weakness.
101.72%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 197.10%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
527.67%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 134.18%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
167.94%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 121.22%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
102.07%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 144.73%. Martin Whitman would suspect weaker recent execution or product competitiveness.
573.61%
Net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 65.33% over 10 years. David Dodd would confirm if brand, IP, or scale secure this persistent advantage.
286.45%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 62.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
115.31%
3Y net income/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 81.66%. Bruce Berkowitz might see new markets, M&A, or better cost discipline driving the difference.
333.02%
Equity/share CAGR of 333.02% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
88.37%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 31.39%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
50.50%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 19.56%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
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.
5.93%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 14.60%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
40.90%
Inventory growth of 40.90% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.58%
Asset growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 4.26%. Bill Ackman suggests reviewing opportunities to match or surpass the competitor's asset expansion if profitable.
3.44%
Under 50% of SNAP's 15.77%. Michael Burry raises concerns about the firm’s ability to build intrinsic value relative to its rival.
-0.72%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
0.25%
R&D dropping or stable vs. SNAP's 11.16%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
1.80%
SG&A declining or stable vs. SNAP's 9.44%. David Dodd sees better overhead efficiency if it doesn't hamper revenue.