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.
74.33%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 769.81%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
11.73%
D&A growth of 11.73% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
67.89%
Deferred tax of 67.89% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-1.45%
Both cut yoy SBC, with BIDU at -14.81%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-77.67%
Negative yoy working capital usage while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
-174.40%
AR is negative yoy while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term cash advantage if revenue remains unaffected vs. competitor's approach.
-0.46%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
222.22%
AP growth of 222.22% 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.
1.08%
Growth of 1.08% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a difference in minor WC usage that might affect short-term cash flow if large.
-50.00%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -672.91%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
28.97%
CFO growth of 28.97% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
11.28%
CapEx growth of 11.28% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
85.19%
Acquisition growth of 85.19% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-17.43%
Negative yoy purchasing while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
57.99%
Liquidation growth of 57.99% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-24.24%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
17.39%
We expand invests by 17.39% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
47.83%
Debt repayment growth of 47.83% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild advantage that can reduce interest costs unless expansions demand capital here.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.