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.
-9.71%
Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.
-9.27%
Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.
-8.18%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-8.18%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
-20.38%
Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.
-20.51%
Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.
-19.61%
Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.
-0.38%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.89%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.73%
Both reduce diluted shares. Martin Whitman would review each firm’s ability to continue repurchases and manage option issuance.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
0.69%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
-17.42%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
529.66%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 10062.79%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
187.72%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 318.87%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
97.00%
3Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 174.61%. Martin Whitman would question if the firm lags behind competitor innovations.
569.81%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 205.35%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
175.32%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 148.50%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
120.22%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 259.47%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
460.49%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
217.16%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 90.40%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
159.89%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 4.07%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
305.64%
Equity/share CAGR of 305.64% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
83.48%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
45.73%
3Y equity/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 36.21%. Bruce Berkowitz confirms timely buybacks or margin improvements drive stronger near-term equity growth.
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.
-9.37%
Both reduce receivables yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a shift in the entire niche’s credit approach or softer demand.
17.01%
Inventory growth of 17.01% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
-0.60%
Negative asset growth while SNAP invests at 18.69%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.
1.33%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
8.45%
Debt shrinking faster vs. SNAP's 60.22%. David Dodd sees a safer balance sheet if it doesn't impair future growth.
4.72%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 4.92%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-21.67%
We cut SG&A while SNAP invests at 4.12%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.