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.
15.77%
Some net income increase while SNAP is negative at -7.19%. John Neff would see a short-term edge over the struggling competitor.
1.03%
Less D&A growth vs. SNAP's 24.03%, reducing the hit to reported earnings. David Dodd would confirm that core assets remain sufficient.
124.68%
Some yoy growth while SNAP is negative at -3344.61%. John Neff would see competitor possibly managing deferrals more aggressively for short-term advantage.
1.74%
Less SBC growth vs. SNAP's 212.00%, indicating lower equity issuance. David Dodd would confirm the firm still retains key staff.
-33.52%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -253.83%. Martin Whitman would find an industry or cyclical factor prompting leaner operational approaches.
48.58%
AR growth while SNAP is negative at -222.53%. John Neff would note competitor possibly improving working capital while we allow AR to rise.
-99.40%
Negative yoy inventory while SNAP is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a near-term cash advantage if top-line doesn't suffer.
143.90%
Lower AP growth vs. SNAP's 760.63%, indicating prompt payments. David Dodd would confirm no lost opportunity in interest-free credit if expansions are underfunded.
-100.56%
Both reduce yoy usage, with SNAP at -318.66%. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical factor pulling back on these items.
-33.33%
Both negative yoy, with SNAP at -324.98%. Martin Whitman would suspect an overall environment of intangible cleanup or shifting revaluations for the niche.
11.85%
Some CFO growth while SNAP is negative at -61.71%. John Neff would note a short-term liquidity lead over the competitor.
-10.05%
Both yoy lines negative, with SNAP at -4.70%. Martin Whitman would suspect a cyclical or broad capital spending slowdown in the niche.
-221.05%
Negative yoy acquisition while SNAP stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees potential short-term cash advantage unless competitor’s deals yield big synergy.
-18.80%
Negative yoy purchasing while SNAP stands at 52.67%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term liquidity advantage unless competitor’s new investments produce outsized returns.
129.55%
At 50-75% of SNAP's 189.28%. Martin Whitman questions partial disadvantage if competitor monetizes investments more efficiently.
-80.49%
We reduce yoy other investing while SNAP is 1794.01%. Joel Greenblatt sees a near-term cash advantage unless competitor’s intangible or side bets produce strong returns.
37.30%
Lower net investing outflow yoy vs. SNAP's 79.20%, preserving short-term cash. David Dodd would confirm expansions remain sufficient.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.