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.
6.90%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 8.00%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
8.97%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x SNAP's 4.04%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
25.40%
Positive EBIT growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
25.40%
Positive operating income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
22.04%
Positive net income growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
22.88%
Positive EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
23.08%
Positive diluted EPS growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-0.88%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.38%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.46%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.38%. 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.
21.94%
Positive OCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see this as a clear operational advantage vs. the competitor.
26.47%
Positive FCF growth while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a strong competitive edge in net cash generation.
455.27%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 8919.44%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
150.51%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 228.80%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
109.68%
3Y revenue/share CAGR similar to SNAP's 112.19%. Walter Schloss would assume both companies experience comparable short-term cycles.
539.62%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 31.22%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
210.25%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 66.80%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
120.50%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
497.37%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
530.41%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 13.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
184.10%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
255.67%
Equity/share CAGR of 255.67% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
80.83%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
38.69%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 3.02%. 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.
7.68%
AR growth well above SNAP's 11.60%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-3.63%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
3.67%
Positive asset growth while SNAP is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
3.31%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.17%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-7.67%
Our R&D shrinks while SNAP invests at 4.96%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-0.29%
We cut SG&A while SNAP invests at 8.43%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.