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.
20.65%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 199.56%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
3.67%
D&A growth of 3.67% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-325.71%
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.
1.92%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 29.77%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-275.14%
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.
-417.38%
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.
-45.87%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
25.84%
AP growth of 25.84% 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.
67.35%
Growth of 67.35% 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.
-120.00%
Both negative yoy, with BIDU at -69.12%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
-2.41%
Negative yoy CFO while BIDU is 25.34%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
-16.08%
Negative yoy CapEx while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-4350.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
35.68%
Purchases growth of 35.68% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
-10.56%
We reduce yoy sales while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
730.00%
Growth well above BIDU's 162.92%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
20.08%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. BIDU's 162.92%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
2.08%
Debt repayment growth of 2.08% 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.
-12.89%
We cut yoy buybacks while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question if competitor is gaining a per-share edge unless expansions justify holding cash here.