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.
2.80%
Revenue growth under 50% of SNAP's 11.32%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
1.82%
Gross profit growth under 50% of SNAP's 10.86%. Michael Burry would be concerned about a severe competitive disadvantage.
-2.27%
Negative EBIT growth while SNAP is at 0.83%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on core profitability.
-2.27%
Negative operating income growth while SNAP is at 6.00%. Joel Greenblatt would press for urgent turnaround measures.
7.19%
Net income growth above 1.5x SNAP's 2.40%. David Dodd would check if a unique moat or cost structure secures superior bottom-line gains.
8.28%
EPS growth above 1.5x SNAP's 4.17%. David Dodd would review if superior product economics or effective buybacks drive the outperformance.
7.64%
Diluted EPS growth above 1.5x SNAP's 4.17%. David Dodd would see if there's a robust moat protecting these shareholder gains.
-0.69%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 1.42%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.53%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 1.42%. 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.
6.94%
OCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 115.60%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.
3.78%
FCF growth under 50% of SNAP's 48.98%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.
446.22%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 3118.13%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
151.44%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 50-75% of SNAP's 221.66%. Martin Whitman would worry about a lagging mid-term growth trajectory.
79.41%
3Y revenue/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 57.95%. Bruce Berkowitz might see better product or regional expansions than the competitor.
539.72%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 105.94%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
156.71%
5Y OCF/share CAGR 1.25-1.5x SNAP's 107.77%. Bruce Berkowitz would see if capital spending or working-capital efficiencies explain the difference.
94.74%
3Y OCF/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 121.02%. Bill Ackman would press for improvements in margin or overhead to catch up.
603.17%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
136.94%
5Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 8.75%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm’s strategy is more effective in generating mid-term profits.
89.09%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
249.18%
Equity/share CAGR of 249.18% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz might see a slight advantage that can compound significantly over 10 years.
77.94%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
38.59%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 2.26%. 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.
5.71%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. SNAP's 12.09%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
32.54%
Inventory growth of 32.54% while SNAP is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.
3.57%
Asset growth above 1.5x SNAP's 0.74%. David Dodd checks if M&A or new capacity expansions are value-accretive vs. competitor's approach.
2.98%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.45%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
6.33%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. SNAP's 3.54%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
5.86%
SG&A growth well above SNAP's 4.19%. Michael Burry sees potential margin erosion unless it translates into higher sales or brand equity.