PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
33.44 - 34.57
31.40 - 61.90
7.61M / 5.95M (Avg.)
-152.73 | -0.22
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.
13.43%
Revenue growth above 1.5x CFLT's 3.34%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has a unique advantage driving sales higher.
18.36%
Gross profit growth above 1.5x CFLT's 1.26%. David Dodd would confirm if the company's business model is superior in terms of production costs or pricing.
72.53%
Positive EBIT growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a substantial edge in operational management.
72.53%
Positive operating income growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might view this as a competitive edge in operations.
71.92%
Positive net income growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
84.62%
Positive EPS growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
84.62%
Positive diluted EPS growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
82.78%
Share count expansion well above CFLT's 1.79%. Michael Burry would question if management is raising capital unnecessarily or is over-incentivizing employees with stock.
82.78%
Diluted share count expanding well above CFLT's 1.79%. Michael Burry would fear significant dilution to existing owners' stakes.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
-0.99%
Both companies show negative OCF growth. Martin Whitman would analyze broader economic or industry conditions limiting cash flow.
-3.02%
Both companies show negative FCF growth. Martin Whitman would consider an industry-wide capital spending surge or margin compression.
-25.39%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while CFLT stands at 163.10%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-25.39%
Negative 5Y CAGR while CFLT stands at 163.10%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-25.39%
Negative 3Y CAGR while CFLT stands at 163.10%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
39.61%
Positive long-term OCF/share growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff would see a structural advantage in sustained cash generation.
39.61%
Positive OCF/share growth while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a comparative advantage in operational cash viability.
39.61%
Positive 3Y OCF/share CAGR while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a big short-term edge in operational efficiency.
15.25%
Positive 10Y CAGR while CFLT is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
15.25%
Positive 5Y CAGR while CFLT is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
15.25%
Positive short-term CAGR while CFLT is negative. John Neff would see a clear advantage in near-term profit trajectory.
6.09%
Below 50% of CFLT's 662.91%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
6.09%
Below 50% of CFLT's 662.91%. Michael Burry sees a substantially weaker mid-term book value expansion strategy in place.
6.09%
Below 50% of CFLT's 662.91%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.
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.
3.50%
Our AR growth while CFLT is cutting. John Neff questions if the competitor outperforms in collections or if we’re pushing credit to maintain sales.
26.99%
Inventory growth well above CFLT's 2.64%. Michael Burry suspects overshooting production or weaker sell-through vs. the competitor.
-1.46%
Both reduce assets yoy. Martin Whitman suspects a broader sector retraction or post-boom asset trimming cycle.
-46.76%
Both erode book value/share. Martin Whitman suspects a difficult environment or poor capital deployment for both players.
-4.00%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
-67.59%
Our R&D shrinks while CFLT invests at 18.22%. Joel Greenblatt checks if we risk falling behind a competitor’s new product pipeline.
-38.21%
We cut SG&A while CFLT invests at 3.85%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.