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.
11.87%
Net income growth under 50% of BIDU's 110.36%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper structural issues in generating bottom-line growth.
0.95%
D&A growth of 0.95% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
195.17%
Deferred tax of 195.17% 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.
1.13%
Less SBC growth vs. BIDU's 55.27%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
89.36%
Working capital change of 89.36% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate difference that might affect near-term cash flow.
-267.21%
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.
215.79%
Inventory growth of 215.79% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
26.22%
AP growth of 26.22% 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.
204.02%
Growth of 204.02% 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.
146.58%
Some yoy increase while BIDU is negative at -84.94%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
28.48%
Operating cash flow growth at 50-75% of BIDU's 40.51%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging operational liquidity vs. competitor.
-24.51%
Both yoy lines negative, with BIDU at -59.05%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-433.67%
Negative yoy acquisition while BIDU stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
21.74%
Purchases growth of 21.74% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
49.68%
Liquidation growth of 49.68% while BIDU is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
-5.13%
We reduce yoy other investing while BIDU is 114.65%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
1866.36%
Investing outflow well above BIDU's 114.65%. Michael Burry sees possible short-term FCF risk unless these invests pay off quickly vs. competitor’s approach.
25.54%
Debt repayment growth of 25.54% 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.
-49.06%
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.