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.
24.62%
Some net income increase while SNAP is negative at -21.07%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
5.88%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 16.33%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
-480.30%
Negative yoy deferred tax while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-0.79%
Negative yoy SBC while SNAP is 44.28%. Joel Greenblatt would see less immediate dilution advantage if talent levels remain strong.
10650.00%
Slight usage while SNAP is negative at -254.07%. John Neff would note competitor possibly capturing more free cash unless expansions are needed here.
26.60%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -358.69%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
146.95%
Inventory growth of 146.95% while SNAP is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-129.03%
Negative yoy AP while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
153.33%
Some yoy usage while SNAP is negative at -111.65%. John Neff would see competitor possibly generating more free cash from minor accounts than we do.
500.00%
Some yoy increase while SNAP is negative at -99.39%. John Neff would see competitor possibly reining in intangible charges or revaluations more effectively than we do.
16.60%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -82.79%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-42.08%
Negative yoy CapEx while SNAP is 13.32%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term FCF boost unless competitor invests for long-term advantage.
-8.00%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 100.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-90.54%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
-9.90%
We reduce yoy sales while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees competitor possibly capitalizing on market peaks or forced to raise cash while we hold tight.
57.14%
Growth well above SNAP's 45.33%. Michael Burry would suspect heavier intangible or side spending overshadowing competitor’s approach, risking short-term FCF.
-485.11%
We reduce yoy invests while SNAP stands at 72.99%. Joel Greenblatt sees near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s expansions yield high returns.
37.84%
Debt repayment growth of 37.84% while SNAP 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.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.