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.
15.77%
Net income growth at 50-75% of BIDU's 28.51%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
1.03%
D&A growth of 1.03% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
124.68%
Deferred tax of 124.68% 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.
1.74%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 4.26%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-33.52%
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.
48.58%
AR growth of 48.58% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-99.40%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
143.90%
AP growth of 143.90% 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.
-100.56%
Negative yoy usage while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
-33.33%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -25.06%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
11.85%
CFO growth of 11.85% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a modest edge that could widen if cost discipline remains strong.
-10.05%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-221.05%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-18.80%
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.
129.55%
Liquidation growth of 129.55% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-80.49%
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.
37.30%
We expand invests by 37.30% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
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.