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.
-33.30%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with BIDU at -99.35%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
8.79%
D&A growth of 8.79% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
220.76%
Deferred tax of 220.76% 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.
4.87%
SBC growth while BIDU is negative at -5.58%. John Neff would see competitor possibly controlling share issuance more tightly.
542.90%
Working capital change of 542.90% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
220.57%
AR growth of 220.57% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
-25.59%
Negative yoy inventory while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
-139.29%
Negative yoy AP while BIDU is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-30.34%
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.
200.00%
Some yoy increase while BIDU is negative at -53.99%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
21.12%
Some CFO growth while BIDU is negative at -80.08%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
13.22%
CapEx growth of 13.22% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
92.58%
Acquisition growth of 92.58% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
-65.70%
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.
40.65%
Liquidation growth of 40.65% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-166.67%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -256.62%. Martin Whitman suspects a cyclical or strategic rationale for cutting extra invests in the niche.
-1.81%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -256.62%. Martin Whitman suspects a broader cyclical shift away from heavy investing across the niche.
29.08%
Debt repayment growth of 29.08% 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.
3.55%
Buyback growth of 3.55% 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.