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.
62.42%
Net income growth at 50-75% of SNAP's 100.00%. Martin Whitman would worry about lagging competitiveness unless expansions are planned.
26.62%
D&A growth well above SNAP's 6.12%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier depreciation burdens that might erode net income unless top-line follows suit.
1895.65%
Deferred tax of 1895.65% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a partial difference that can matter for future cash flow if large in magnitude.
-83.82%
Negative yoy SBC while SNAP is 1.84%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
102.00%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -100.00%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
52.83%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -101.59%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
100.88%
Inventory growth of 100.88% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
660.00%
A yoy AP increase while SNAP is negative at -374.96%. John Neff would see competitor possibly improving relationships or liquidity more rapidly.
108.25%
Growth well above SNAP's 100.00%. Michael Burry would see a potential hidden liquidity or overhead issue overshadowing competitor's approach.
-44.75%
Negative yoy while SNAP is 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term net income or CFO stability advantage unless competitor invests or writes down more aggressively.
3.31%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -41.63%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
58.60%
Some CapEx rise while SNAP is negative at -73.86%. John Neff would see competitor possibly building capacity while we hold back expansions.
38.91%
Acquisition growth of 38.91% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
73.15%
Some yoy expansion while SNAP is negative at -74.24%. John Neff sees competitor possibly refraining from new investments or liquidating existing ones for immediate cash.
192.64%
1.25-1.5x SNAP's 163.45%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a sizable advantage unless competitor’s portfolio yields future gains.
150.00%
Growth of 150.00% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate difference requiring justification by ROI in these smaller invests.
93.97%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 7722.77%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
-22.22%
We cut debt repayment yoy while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly lowering risk more if expansions do not hamper them.
-100.01%
Negative yoy issuance while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term advantage in avoiding dilution unless competitor invests more effectively with the new shares.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.