PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
743.76 - 757.57
479.80 - 796.25
8.25M / 11.73M (Avg.)
27.40 | 27.58
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
23.21%
Net income growth at 50-75% of BIDU's 39.90%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
-2.65%
Both reduce yoy D&A, with BIDU at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would suspect a lull in expansions or intangible additions for both.
-3200.00%
Negative yoy deferred tax while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
14.60%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 30.53%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-68.14%
Both reduce yoy usage, with BIDU at -100.00%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
-278.10%
AR is negative yoy while BIDU is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
637.50%
Inventory growth of 637.50% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
890.00%
AP growth of 890.00% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might matter for short-term liquidity if expansions are large.
700.00%
Some yoy usage while BIDU is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
-242.86%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -7533.27%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
4.36%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-29.20%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
49.29%
Purchases growth of 49.29% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
7.50%
Liquidation growth of 7.50% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-100.00%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
77.46%
Investing outflow well above BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
21.43%
Debt repayment well below BIDU's 100.00%. Michael Burry suspects heavier leverage risk or insufficient cash generation to keep pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.