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.
12.54%
Revenue growth at 75-90% of SNAP's 14.53%. Bill Ackman would push for innovation or market expansion to catch up.
12.13%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 16.91%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
11.03%
EBIT growth below 50% of SNAP's 32.84%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
11.03%
Operating income growth under 50% of SNAP's 34.56%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
5.07%
Net income growth under 50% of SNAP's 32.59%. Michael Burry would suspect the firm is falling well behind a key competitor.
5.73%
EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 34.78%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues or share dilution limiting per-share gains.
5.81%
Diluted EPS growth under 50% of SNAP's 34.78%. Michael Burry would worry about an eroding competitive position or excessive dilution.
-0.74%
Share reduction while SNAP is at 0.79%. Joel Greenblatt would see if the company has a better buyback policy than the competitor.
-0.74%
Reduced diluted shares while SNAP is at 0.79%. 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.
-38.30%
Negative OCF growth while SNAP is at 1187.65%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-65.06%
Negative FCF growth while SNAP is at 282.77%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
449.10%
10Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of SNAP's 1821.68%. Michael Burry would suspect a lasting competitive disadvantage.
144.69%
5Y revenue/share CAGR at 75-90% of SNAP's 182.33%. Bill Ackman would encourage strategies to match competitor’s pace.
64.13%
3Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 33.69%. David Dodd would confirm if there's an emerging competitive moat driving recent gains.
287.29%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 174.19%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
62.17%
Below 50% of SNAP's 205.55%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-9.75%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while SNAP stands at 380.32%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
557.19%
Positive 10Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
157.43%
Positive 5Y CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
46.99%
Positive short-term CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
248.10%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x SNAP's 45.92%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
77.64%
Positive 5Y equity/share CAGR while SNAP is negative. John Neff might see a clear edge in retaining earnings or managing capital better.
37.77%
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.
16.93%
AR growth well above SNAP's 14.48%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
-100.00%
Inventory is declining while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential cost and margin benefits if sales hold up.
1.43%
Asset growth well under 50% of SNAP's 3.17%. Michael Burry sees the competitor as far more aggressive in building resources or capacity.
4.50%
Positive BV/share change while SNAP is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
8.25%
Debt growth far above SNAP's 4.54%. Michael Burry fears the firm is taking on undue leverage vs. the competitor.
7.59%
We increase R&D while SNAP cuts. John Neff sees a short-term profit drag but a potential lead in future innovations.
18.98%
We expand SG&A while SNAP cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.